HW 15 - Triangular Comments 3

Dinorah,

Throughout all your post from 10 – 14, # 13 is my favorite one. I find the way you define art is a very interesting, and I can see it definitely allows you see Feed as a different perspective of art through emotions. I appreciate this post a lot, and it did lead me to further thought. Great job!

From my understanding, you see the book Feed as a painting, and you describe how M.T. Anderson has paint the story as a tragic through the lens of setting. Additionally, you also see his piece through characterization to figure out the parallels of our lives compared to the ones in Feed. Lastly, you mentioned the shape of M.T. Anderson’s book that he did not offer an solution through his piece because he wants the reviewers to find out while looking at his piece.

When you said Feed is not something seen as wrong, but more as life source that helps us to develop. I find this very relevant to what we have discussed in class before that the book is a revelatory art. Feed did present the sense of realization to many of the people including ourselves who go through similar experiences as the characters in his piece. However, I do believe people see Feed as something that’s wrong, thus it awaken us from our mistakes.

Overall, I think your post is very well written. However, I think you should reread it, because there do have some sentences that does not make sense if you read aloud to yourself. Other than that, I think you should expand on the idea through the definition of art hat you stated in the beginning. You seem to provide readers what an art is, but you never seem to address whether Feed is a great piece through that definition of art.

After reading your post, it makes me reconsider my own life in general. Are there any solutions to the issues that M.T. Anderson point out? According to your post, you mentioned few possibilities such as “what if these have grown too much that it is now part of our lives as opposed to a momentary encounter.” Or it is really up to us to give the solution to it. I think in this case, we all have our own answers depending on how we choose to live our lives. However, your point about how the issues have grown too much is something that I never thought of. Perhaps, it is possible that problems can get stack up together, and we might have to face the big time.

Thanks for pushing me to think in another perspective. I am looking forward to see your response to my questions that I mentioned.

Bao Lin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Richard,

I read all the post from 10 – 14, and I find #12 as one of my favorite throughout all of them. Not only that I agreed to most of your arguments in this post, I also felt your connection is interesting. Great work!

Based on my understand of your blog post, I think you first draw the parallels between feed and our own digital teenage life such as trying to be cool, overusing the word “like”, chatting without using your moth…etc. Then you also point out the difference between them was that in feed, the chip is being installed into them while we are just using it obsessively. Lastly, you connect to the real world, and say how this could actually happen.

Overall, I agreed with what you said about similar aspects of our lives compared to Feed’s. It is true that we used the word “like” a lot especially from the teenager’s voice. It is seem as more like a tragedy in a way that we do not know how to describe things. Although the word “like” sometimes is very unnecessary while we are speaking, people tempt to use it as a habit. Whether it is a good sign or not, or does it really matter as long as people understand, I do not really know. But I find the word “like” very annoyed when people used it more than 3 times when they are speaking. (By the way, this is a very good point!)

Before commenting on what you can improve on this post, I just want to say it will be better if you can leave a space between paragraphs, or break it into paragraphs, so it is readable. Now, here comes to the comment based on post. I find the connection that you brought up are very interesting, and I think you should definitely expand on them and probably quote some of the lines from the documents will make the connection more strong. Additionally, when you said most people are lying and they actually do want the feed to be installed, I find this very interesting also. I guess this is another good point that you can expand on such as what makes you think that way, and how will the chip really impact us if it was being installed. Last, I can see that you agree with what the feed said, and I wonder if you can think of any alternative point of view.

When you mentioned how scary that the book could be realistic, it really did make me reconsider my life. It also makes me thought about realistic and unrealistic as what we have discussed in class today. I often look at unrealistic depending on my situation and perceptions, but never consider something that I never seen could actually be considered realistic. I think this is very helpful in a way that draws a clearer line between realistic and unrealistic.

Thanks for the great post with insights. I am looking forward to see more insights from your post later on in your future posts.

Bao Lin

HW 14 - Everything Bad Is Good For You

Everything Bad Is Good For You by Steven Johnson discussed how today’s popular culture is actually making us smarter through the aspects of video games, television, and the internet.

Video games are good because they are not fun. Throughout the excerpt about the benefits of video games, Steven Johnson argues that video games are not necessary bad for us, and they could possibly benefit us on making decisions, prioritizing, and probing. He uses books as the target to compare with video games, saying how “the intellectual nourishment of reading books is so deeply ingrained in our assumptions that it’s hard to contemplate a different point of view”. With that being said, he reversed the order of existence between books and video games. It did not seem that he is intended to argue which one is better, but how they both could possibly play the same role in our lives. He thinks that while people often think playing video games are isolating from the others, books prevents us from socially interactive also. They both supply the space for kids to escape from the reality. Additionally, both provided characters for us to evaluate and judge in terms of characterization although video games supply more flexibility on plots and characters compared to books. Furthermore, he argues that “playing today’s games does in fact improve your visual intelligence and your manual dexterity, but the virtues of gaming run far deeper than hand-eye coordination”. He thinks that “nonliterary popular culture” has grown more challenging over the past 30 years, and by playing video games we actually have to go through the process of probing and telescoping that benefits our brain intelligence as he said, “it’s not what you’re thinking about when you’re playing game, it’s the way you’re thinking matters”.

Main quote summarize the argument : What you actually do in playing a game – the way your mind has to work – is radically different; it’s about finding order and meaning in the world, and making decisions that help create the order.

Television makes you smart. Similar ideas as the video games, Steven Johnson argues that watching television will improve our intelligence in different ways. Such as watching the game shows, it allows us to “evaluate and reward our knowledge of trivia”; the professional sport, it “reward our physical intelligence”; and reality shows, “challenge our emotional intelligence and our AQ”. Throughout the long excerpt about television, he compared many shows, soap operas, sitcoms, movies…etc., to prove that we actually goes through the process of thinking and filling the gaps of what’s happening on the television. Many challenge our minds in order to understand what the show is actually about. He also mentioned how by watching the shows that have to do with relationships could actually help us on social skills. “Any profession that involves regular interaction with other people will place a high premium on mind reading and emotional IQ. Of all the media available to us today, television is uniquely suited for conveying the fine gradients of these social skills.” He considers the television is actually a guide that helps us understand the others, so we can interact better. Furthermore, he defined smart as “being smart is sometimes about doing complicated math in our heads, or making difficult logical decisions, but an equally important measure of practical intelligence is our ability to assess – and respond appropriately – to other people’s emotional signals.”

Main quote summarize the argument : You have to focus to follow the plot, and in focusing you’re exercising the part of your brain that maps social networks. The content of the show may be about revenge killings and terrorist attacks, but the collateral learning involves something altogether different, and more nourishing. It’s about relationships.

Bad = Stupid, Good = Smart. Before actually reading the excerpt, that is the equation that I jot down on the paper while pre reading the text. I thought Steven Johnson will be criticizing by comparing how the good are bad to suggest how bad is actually good for us. But it actually turn out that he is only providing the reader another perspective on how something that we think is bad has its own good. He did not seem to critique what is bad in his excerpt, but how everything is good. It almost seems as bad does not exist in the case of reading his excerpt. Especially when he is discussing the video games, I thought it is very well written that suggest his point of view. The part that he flips the order by reversing book and the video game really did make some sense and it is interesting to think about Does the order matter? But thinking it as a reality concept, I will consider that as a faulty because it is impossible. Using the word if for the past tense seems unarguable to me. However, I think he did suggest another perspective and serve his point of how people make assumptions. Overall, the excerpt about the video games did help me look into another perspective on digital representation devices as a whole, when he draw out the parallels between books and video games such as how they both have characters and plots, making the reader and the player passive,…etc. The most interesting point that I think he has on this part of the excerpt is when he mentioned how such torture in games is the way we define “play” and the point he said that “the dirty little secrets is how much time you spend not having fun”. Also when he questioned “why does a seven year old soak up the intricacies of industrial economics in game form, when the same subject would send him screaming for the exits in a classroom? ”, I think he suggest a good point as why working so hard when we get to pay the same, or why reading books when play video games can serve the criteria as reading. Lastly, when he stated his beliefs that “printed word remains the most powerful vehicle for conveying complicated information”, I think somehow it weakens his whole argument.

Smart is all we need. While reading the video and television excerpt, I think the way Steven Johnson enhances his idea is by focusing on the lens of smart and stupid, good and bad. He only considers what makes us smart is good, but he never seem to address what bad really is throughout the excerpt. If by thinking television, video games, Internet are bad for us, then how are they bad? Especially in the excerpt about the television while he discussed many TV shows, I think it is kind of meaningless to set out this much of examples but never seem to address what bad really is in his own definition, but only what it is beneficial to us. Although he tries to convince the reader how everything is good throughout the whole long excerpt by staying on neutral, his arguments seems to be very bias as I read on. When he talked about the advantages of what TV shows offer to the audience, I think he missed the point that TV shows are somehow lack of the reality and often bias. Many of them do not present the actuality of the real world and has been twisted for the purpose of audience viewing. Thus, his argument of how it could help us with social skills seems weak. Another weakness that I see in the excerpt about the television is that he never seems to address how emotional intelligence, physical intelligence can help us in real life other than it improves our intelligence. From reading that, I think it leads the reader to the question, where do I go from that? In other words, I did not see the significance of the intelligence that he presents in his book. Lastly, when he stated about the order of comparing "you have to avoid the tendency to sentimentalize the past.If you’re going to look at pop culture trends, you have to compare apples to apples, or in this case, lemons to lemons." I think he is contradicting with his own argument because the present is a transition of the past. Thus, at some levels, we are comparing the past and the present.

Feed vs. Everything Bad Is Good For You. By comparing Feed and Steven Johnson’s excerpt, it is obvious that they are the exact opposite. While M.T. Anderson is enhancing how the digital representation devices can make us stupid, Steven Johnson suggests that they are actually making us smart. Although both seem to contradict each other, I think the both author are very similar to each other in a way. They both define bad as stupid, and good as smart in their literature. The difference between them is just M.T. Anderson is depicting the idea of how bad it is, and Steven Johnson is defining the good part of it. M.T. Anderson seems to focus more on feed as referring to the stimulation of advertisement, commercials, and some part of the Internet(M-chat, searching) while Steven Johnson focused on television, video games, and Internet. They both focused on different types of digital representation devices and they both critique it in a different tone and style. One prefer to use his own voice talking about the current issue, and one prefer to write it in a futuristic form but reflect the current world. Although both seems to going to different directions (Bad<--->Good), they do meet each other.

HW 13 - Feed B

What is art and what isn’t? (Got this from the museum that I am interning for)

Looking at a book and consider it as a piece of art, it is kind of odd to me at first. But to think or look at everything as art, M.T. Anderson’s book as a literature piece is definitely a great one that is worth to look at and talk about. The very first moved that I liked about his literature is that he depicts Feed as a revelatory art without his actual voice. Instead, he illustrates other characters especially the old man to speak out his own perspective on digitalization. Perhaps, he noticed that it is difficult for someone to admit and realize their mistakes. Therefore, he did not choose to use a parental voice saying “computers are bad for you” directly to the readers but an adolescent’s voice as he is actually in your shoes sharing his experiences not mistakes. By doing this, the readers will not interact with the offensive voice directly like what most of the parents will do throughout the reading process. As trying to make the readers to realize something or to self criticize their own life, Tobin did a great job inviting the readers to fall into his trap deeply. He does not sound like he is blaming or insulting you, but using a teenager’s voice that shares the similar experience as the readers to make the others to realize or relate to. This is an excellent choice to make a revelatory art to set the readers to fall into a comfortable trap, and actually realize their mistakes. However, either the reader will make a difference in their life or not, it is another question. A revelatory art seems more like a mirror that reflects instead of a hammer that shapes it in this case.

The second moved that I like is that Tobin portrays the whole story as an allegory. By simplifying the complicated ideas and themes into a metaphor of something that is so simple to understand for most of the people, this book is even more resonant. Throughout the whole book, instead of describing the setting as home or a specific place, he called the moon and timed it as the future. He also called the digital representation devices the feed. All these terms that he continuously used in his piece of art has made his piece simple, but profound. It also created more space for the audience to imagine, to come up with personal experience to connect to the piece in anyway. Although this is a futuristic novel, the theme that it enhances is still relevant to our daily life now. This will draw the significance of this piece of art, because it expresses the theme that people from different time period could connect to. In this case, looking at Feed as an allegory perspective, it is consider the hammer because it shapes our thoughts and life in some way since he portrays the image of future. Knowing that no one can predict the future other than hypothesize based on current issues and data, Tobin demonstrates the problem in the book that is similar to people’s current life, then preview the image of future to convince the reader that’s the possibility that they will turn out to be - ignorant. Therefore, it shapes people’s thoughts in a way that is possible to lead them to see things differently. However, he never provide an solution to the problem that he is emphasizing, which I believe he did this on purpose for the audience to decide how they want to live their life.

Can a mirror be a hammer? My answer to this is no. I feel like one cannot be the other without either one. The mirror is suppose to reflect which provides the chance for the audience to see themselves in the art, then the hammer be able to shape it the way they wanted. I don’t think it is possible to shape someone before they actually see themselves as the art piece that they perceive. Additionally, whether the hammer is able to shape the world or not, it depends on how powerful that piece has affected the audience and how strong that piece brings out the theme behind it. Therefore, mirror could only be a mirror if the hammer exist, and vice versa. It could not be the other’s because they are responsible for different criteria as being a tool to draw the meaning of the piece.

HW 12 - Feed A (Expanded Version)

Attitude. Throughout the book, Feed by M.T. Anderson, words such as “stupid, dumb, sucks and dadada” keeps appearing over time. I find this very similar to my current life as a digital teen. Not that I used these words all the time that I find it parallels to each other, it is the attitude that I or many of the others have towards things that we perceive. Especially around school, I heard these words all the time. Every time when we are in touch with things that we are not interested or difficult to understand, we commented as “dumb” or “stupid”. This enhance the idea of how now a days, we make such extreme assumptions about the things that we did not completely know. We just see the surface of the things, and we assume/label it as “this is dumb” in our minds. In the book for example, when Titus just met Violet and they were talking about the different planets, Titus said dumb constantly. “Are you having a good time? She asked. The moon really isn’t working out, I said. Next time, maybe you should try Mars. Yeah, I’ve been to Mars, I said. It was dumb. Suddenly, she laughed. Are you serious? Yeah, I’m serious. Omigod, she said. Mars is a whole planet. And it’s dumb! She was like, dumb? … I said, Yes, dumb. The whole world? Dumb.” It’s just that Titus did not find the moon appealing, he immediately consider it dumb. We no longer go back or reconsider our assumptions now a day because we are being so attached to the media’s dominant perspective. Yes, the digital representation devices make us into ignorants. I will say most teenage including myself did not just avoid problems, we barely ponder what’s beyond. I agreed with A.T. Anderson that we should “start exploring all the peculiar corners of the world that are out there. Because that’s the one thing the media does not encourage: a real sense of curiosity.”

Identity. In the book, M.T. Anderson depicts Violet as someone who is trying to define herself whether with the feed or vice versa. Since Violet installed her feed a little later than the others, it makes her character stands out even more as the book goes on. Like an exception. One of the quote that I really like was “Look at us! You don’t have the feed! You are feed. You’re feed. You’re being eaten! You’re raised for food! Look at what you’ve made yourselves!...She’s a monster! Covered with cuts! She’s a creature!” I find this very close to my current digital teen lifestyle. Especially the amount of time that I spend on computers, it often makes me feel like I am being replaced by the computers. People always told me never shall let fate to take control of you, or you will lose control of who you want to be. This is how I feel currently that I being “eaten” by the computer. I no longer can control how things go, but the computer. All these are caused by my habits of relying on the convenience of technologies. The computers won’t get any harm without us because they are objects, but we will screw up without them. In other words, I am no longer Bao Lin, but computer. Just as the phone numbers and screen names in instant messaging, I am just some numbers or letters. What’s else is left? “Everything I think of when I think of really living, living to the full – all my ideas are just the opening credits of sitcoms. See what I mean? My idea of life, it’s what happens when they’re rolling the credits. My god. What am I, without the feed? It’s all from the feed credits. My idea of real life.”

Collapse.“Nobody knows. The feed is tied into everything. Your body control, your emotions, your memory. Everything. Sometimes feed errors are fatal.” When most of our generations were kids, when digital representation devices are not that popular, most of us are socially active outside. As a child, we find fun in every little thing that is around us. But now, the meaning of fun has been twisted. We no longer value those sweet memories like going on vacations, or spending time being together having fun actively. I will say many of our current memories must be digital related. Such as using facebook, texting through phones, instant message, video games...etc., all these digital representation devices that we obsessively use in daily basics reflects how much we value these things instead of our surroundings. Regardless of the advantages or disadvantages, I think it caused us to be very superficial. Many of the these devices has dominant our lives that we whether buy some more new clothes to conform instead of saving a kid who is suffering in the other part of the world. Perhaps seeing yourselves as some celebrities or reality show stars on facebook seems cool and it doesn't really affect anything. But eventually, fame ends up to be something that people values in life, which is something that is intangible, but only be able to feel inside. We will soon misinterpret many things around us, and value things erratically. We named the useless precious.

I expanded this based on the comments, and they are in color brown. Thanks Andy.

HW 11 - Self Experiment 1

During the beginning of the school year, I have decided not to bring too many digital representation devices with me on my way to school. So I left my MP3 at home and only bring my cell phone to school every day until now. Even I have my cell phone; I manage not to text more than 5 times a day. I guess this could count as one of the experiment that I did before the course started. Since a lot of people listen to their iPod while on their way to school, on subway, walking, even in class, I think music plays a big role in many people's life. Although I did not really know why people are so attached to their iPod, I do know that many people feel uncomfortable without it. Thus, I decided to talk about this experiment that I coincidentally did even before we all start to learn about this topic.

During the first week without my MP3, my reaction to it was really just uncomfortable. I tempted to look for things to do and look at on the subway such as the advertisement banners or just staring at the passengers. While I was walking to school or back to the station, I started to be aware of my surroundings other than just listening to the music as I used to be. Basically, the first week is completely vacant and annoyed. It feels extremely dull on the train and since there are no distraction, it almost seem as staying in the reality mode all the time. More importantly, I was about to bring it with me again because I cannot stand the “quietness” and “blank stare” on the subway. However, I think this whole process makes me became more aware and conscious about myself.

As the following week pass by, I start to feel more comfortable without the headphones. I even feel a little bit wired when I see 8 out of 10 people on the subway are with their headphones on the whole time. I wonder if it is just a way for people to escape reality. Many times I see people begging for money with paper cups on the subway, and many people just look at their iPod and ignored. I guess this is how many people live their life most of the time, isolated. In another perspective, I think it is understandable in this circumstance. Bunch of people are being forced to stay in a small area with crowded strangers it is to consider a very awkward scene. You do not know the others but you just happened to sit next to them or being very close to them for the whole time. Furthermore, without some distraction, it is even the most awkward moment in people’s life every single day.

Throughout this experiment, I find music much more important but at the same time I learned how to appreciate my surroundings more. Even when I am listening to my music or texting on my cell phone, I became more aware of myself. Whether I will bring my MP3 with me again or not, I still haven’t decided yet. But I think I will, because I do need this kind of stimulation to bring myself to another state of mind whether it is the reality or just fantasy.

HW 10 - Informal Research Internet

Topic: I am interested at how does the Internet benefits/harm us? I focused more on Internet other than being vague about digital representation devices because I think Internet is the one that really plays a big role in people's life. Without Internet, the phones or computers might not be as fun as they originally are.

Is the Internet making us stupid?

The article is basically about how Internet could make us dumb in terms of reading skills. Carr who has wrote an article called "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", and claimed that by doing these researchs through Google; we get extensive results that caused us to have the habit to skim through things. Therefore, by having this habit, we will soon be unable to read the full text because it is too long. As reading on, he also said that it is not just Google, but the whole Internet could affect us in a negative way based on the structure- sources always available.

"In fact, Carr argues, when we give in to the natural impulses to click and skim, rather than to read and think, the Internet may actually doing us a disservice: It shortens our attention spans and even inhibits our ability to read longer books and articles." I never realized this until I read this article that I have been skimming through things while I am reading. In one way it is helpful because as long as we got the idea, it is okay to just scan through it. By doing that, it might even help us to save more time rather than just reading the full long text. But in the other hand, it really shows how we don't have the patience to bear with long reading. Is it possible that I just happened to skim through and it is not really a habit from numerous sources on the Internet? "Right now, you're probably happy that you have the vast resources of the entire Internet at your fingertips. It's a feeling of power, isn't it? All that information, all that content, right there for you whenever you want it?" Somehow, I find this true because we often do research by googling it, and we do feel the sense of power by just "fingertip" it. Even the research I am doing it right now is through Google. It really did dominates many of us and limits the way we look at things although we been to different source. Overall, it is still from GOOGLE, as one major source that most of us use.

Is the Internet making us stupid?
Is Google making us Stupid?
In the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", Carr kept blaming the Internet for preventing him to focuse more on books. He also shared his friends' similar experiences to claim that the Internet does make us stupid because we no longer can take long readings because of the "ubiquity of text on the Internet" . Even thought they like to read, they tempt to skim through it and they claim that it is not just making them dumber, it also changed the way they think. From one of the source that Carr used in his article said, " It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense. " Carr believes that reading an actual book is different from reading through Internet, and it does change our way of thinking because "our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged. "
I did not fully finish reading the article, when I read on I tempt to skim through and nothing really catches my eyes. However, I did find some interested ideas in this article. As reading it, it seems Carr values reading a lot. Like what we discuss in class before, why reading is better? His crucial argument of this article is basically saying reading is the only way to make you smarter. "We may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self." I find that he has a pretty good argument on why people should read, but at the same time it contradicts. By having different kinds of reading and thinking, this will also implies that reading on the Internet will cause us to have a "new sense of the self" also.
Is Google making us stupid?

How the Internet can affect health?

Both the article and the video is saying that now teaching the seniors how to use the Internet could help them cope with loneliness and depression. From teaching them how to use facebook, emails, and other devices that related to interaction, it shows that it actually works because the society has slowly included the old people into it.

WOW. Some of these old people are like age of 90s, and they are still learning how to use a computer. I am very amazed by that, and surprised that these seniors are actually have the passion and will to learn. Usually old people avoid to interact with the youngsters because of the gap. But now, it seems people are really including everybody into this. " 'What few that's left, they don't even know what a computer is,' she said. 'They're still in the dark ages like I was. I'm not there anymore!' " I find it funny how this old lady is comparing the digital era to the dark age, and how she feels different from her friends who don't know how to use a computer. It looks like they feel they are young once again.

How the Internet can affect health?

HW 9 - Response to Comments

Richard, 

I appreciate your time reading my blog and actually have left some thoughtful comments with effort that tells me you do understand my writings. Additionally, I am glad that you like my video. Thank you!

When you mentioned how time flies when I am distracted is a point that makes me reconsider. You make me thought about how time actually goes by. In the moment, I think I am making use of the time that I have and it is actually enjoyable. But how come when I looking back at it, it turns out to be the most meaningless moment that I ever have? This really did lead me to think deeper hopefully. As you told me in your comment to “view things more deeply”, I think your brief comment did somehow help me to touch more perspective about this topic. 

The contradiction that you talked about between how it feels and looks like, it leads me to a further thought into this topic. When I was consuming to the digital devices, to me at the moment, I think time passed pretty fast and enjoyable. It even gets to the point that it is so addicted that I felt like I never have enough. But reviewing back to the moment from my video and actually sat down watching back at my life at the moment. It is certainly very dull or even spiritless. I think this is a very insightful question to think about, “Why the moment seems so enjoyable but people do not look back to it as one of the meaningful moment in their life?” Different from going on a trip or a birthday party that you have attended, even these moments have passed away; you do think back to it and say to yourself, that was a great moment. Now thinking about it, I think this is the biggest contrast between digital and non-digital life. One is that you always feels good and looks good, but the other only feels good, but it doesn’t look good. From my memory, I think you did touched a little about this thought too that you only are able to see what others are doing, but you are not in it. It is kind of depressing.

I think both in my post and yours have demonstrated the differences between how it feels and looks although we both did not really deepen this argument. You focused more on how it actually turned out but I focused more on the moment I interacted with it. Thus, you are going to the direction of final product, but I lie more on the process- beginning vs. end.

Both you and I have pay close attention to feelings and appearances in the posts and comments. Why do you think the digital devices could be so enjoyable in the moment, but the sense of fulfillment could be gone so fast?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dinorah,

I appreciate that you have dedicated time to read my post and left me some comments with such a warm tone. I am glad that it makes you reconsider about your interaction with your family members. This really shows why reading each others’ post and comment is helpful.

First of all, I am glad that you mentioned “technology is part of” my life. This is very true and it shows you did understand my post overall. By saying that, you actually make me reconsider something that I never thought of to talk about in my post. When I am eating with my family, I always feel like we are all together and interacting with each other while the television is on. But after you shared your experience with how you eat with your family, I realized that even though they are surrounded by me, they are actually not here. I am just me, sitting there eat and watch TV shows. I am not really “BEING” with them. (This is great point! It is like I can sit with strangers and still do the same) Thanks for your suggestion that caused me to be able to expand on this idea about how I interact with my family. 

When you said you have nothing to talk to with your family when the television is off, I feel very connected and similar to you. Sometimes when there are no TV shows that we all like to watch when we are eating, I tempt to find something beforehand so there will always be something to entertain everybody. This turns out to be a habit for my family, and we all are so getting used to have something there to watch. When there is nothing to watch, we did at first have something to talk about. But after awhile, it became so awkward that we just stare at each other. This makes me think about the question: Are we really running out of topics to talk about without these distractions or we just don’t have the will to open ourselves up on the dinner table? 

In your blog, it seems like you focused more on how the digital devices have impacted you while I focused more on the process/moment that I am interacting with them. You talked more on how it distracts you from doing what you are actually doing while I lie more on how enjoyable that moment is but not afterwards. 

Both in your post/comment and mine, we both emphasize the point that these digital devices could be one of the things that impacted us the most in our lives. But it seems like we did not really draw the line to clarify whether it is good or bad in the long term.