This semester has been very interesting, and has caused me to think a lot about the effects of technology. Overall, I think that this week’s readings, and most of the readings we’ve done throughout the course, indicate that technology allows people to communicate more easily and more often, but that the quality and depth of communication goes down.

I would definitely define myself as a “networked individual,” because technology has allowed me to keep in contact with a great deal of people. In fact, I would agree with Rainie and Wellman that networked individualism gives us “new ways to solve problems and meet social needs” (p. 9). I am in many Facebook groups to glean knowledge about varying parts of business and photography, but I rarely contribute with my own knowledge. I am so busy that my participation in any community is rushed. Networked individualists have a variety of resources at their fingertips, but they have a hard time being in a close community because of their time binds (Rainie and Wellman, p. 125). I thought that their inclusion of the Pope’s quote was very interesting as well- he echoes my thoughts that technology is good, but that people need to take a step back and experience people in real life (p. 127).

Two other areas I found specifically interesting were the teenage texting study and Baym and Hall’s thoughts on mobile maintenance. Baym and Hall wrote that as we text and call a friend more, we are expected to keep up that communication (326). I never would have thought that there was a specific expectation attached to that. If anything, I would have assumed that the more I text someone and contact them, the more I expect them to contact me and reach out to me. The statistics about teenagers texting and driving were very scary. Every single one of my closest high school friends caused an accident in the first few years of their driving, and many of them were irresponsible behind the wheel. It’s amazing how texting is so much more important than not only other people’s lives, but their own personal safety. I think that shows a lot about how high of a priority we place on technology.

The readings overall are about the growth of personal technology and its evolved effects on the users. The reading more directly discusses filling the void of  traditional social cues in online communication. I find the Mckenna study from Baym chapter  6 to be the most interesting in the study over 50 percent of people had made a personal connection offline though face to face or other tools of communication. This denounces that people are straying away form F2F relations or older form of communication. I also find from a couple of the readings that so many people are engaged in digital media that they need to power down. I remember when i was kid they use to promote turing off the tube and now they are suggesting powering off. In the radio  program it was reported the an an average kid spent 7 hours a day engaged in CMC.  That seems like crazy amount compared to when i was a kid. It shows how from kid to adults, everyone is engaged in CMC.

This weeks readings were about the networked individual. The story about Trudy and Peter really fascinated me, because they used technology to their advantage, and stayed connected more efficiently and faster than if they would have relied on just face to face, or simply phone calls. The network individual is about personalizing and making technology adapted to your needs. If you need an answer from someone, you do not have to go through a third party. You can get the answer from many different sources: via email, text, phone call, and even post. People have their agendas on their phones and can set their lives to be more convenient for them. The way Peter and Trudy were able to communicate what had happened to them in a wider mass, was effective in attaining more resources for help.Then friends and family were able to get help from their friends and family and so on. This shows how communication online is not all negative like some people think. Ronnie and Wellman say, “people are not hooked on gadgets-they are hooked on each other”. This is interesting, because if you think about it, most people are communicating online with someone. They are still talking to people, so there is not complete isolation from the world. Most teens who are online or texting do spend hours in front of the screen, but it is to talk to friends and or family.

In the radio interview with Byam, she says “attention has always been scare”. Negative attention always gets more attention than positive attention. So the negative attention that technology gets is overpowered, because the research that is done on the positive is obscured. Not many people know about it. Byam also recognized that there should be a balance with online communication and spending time with loved ones since most people have such scarce time. So what I think she was trying to say was that she does not think the use of technology is bad, also depending what we are doing online, just as long as we can find a balance between the two. So it is ok to look into each others eyes for a while until it gets creepy, then we can gaze back onto our screens. Personally, I do not get online much on the weekends and try to stay away from technology so I can focus on my family and me time, so I do think finding a balance is very important.

            Based on the studies, new technologies such as texts, blogs, and the internet have had massive influences on the lives of most people. According to Hall and Baym’s findings, there were 5 billion mobile connections around the world. This allowed owners of new technology to talk with multiple people almost constantly. However, the spread of new technology had mixed effects on people who possessed such capabilities. On one hand, it allowed for them to communicate with families, friends, or any other people of interest anytime no matter where they were. On the other hand, it transfixed most people and eventually became a major part of their lives. Most people even admitted to not being able to go a day without some form of new technology, according to Hall and Baym’s notes.

            The overall message of these readings is that new technologies have become so important to some individuals, that they would be lucky to go a day without any texting or blogging to other people. One specific finding in Ling’s article troubled me. It stated that teens in today’s society spend much more time texting each other than talking face-to-face. The statement in Ling’s article supported my fears of the effect that technology today can and has had on certain people. It can have a tragic impression on young people, as well as their families. For example, I know a young girl at my mom’s workplace who utters movie quotes most of the time. She almost never says anything relating to the current moment. Due to this possible side effect and other negative possibilities of current methods of non-personal communications, I would have to say that I am not a networked individual. I rarely use technology for other purposes rather than letting my family know where I am.

All of these studies this week talks about how internet and technology has evolved in our life and become a major part of our communication in relationships. Lenhart studied teens have cell phone and use them a lot to communicate with family, friends and interact on email, blogs and social media and chats.

These studies pointed out that face-to-face communication is are depleting with the increase of technology use. Baym claims that people are not replacing face-to-face communication by using texting, email, social networking but are enhancing face-to-face relationships. I have yet to see how texting, email, social networking sites, etc. enhance face to face relationships because people rarely communicate face to face. Have you ever walked in a room that was full of people but everyone was typing and communicating on their phone as if they were in the room alone. Rainie and Wellman talks about how communication devices are used to communicate with each other. I loved the story they gave at the beginning of chapter 1 of Peter and Trudy. This was a very touching story and it shows a great example of their idea of “networked individualism.”

I was confused when seeing that so many teens have cell phones at such a young age. I always ask my niece and young children I see with a cell phone what the purpose is. I don’t see who they actually have to talk to at such a young age.  Baym and the radio broadcast talked about the fear that CMC is ruining our abilities to communicate and that technology is going to destroy current way of life. I wouldn’t say that I believe it is going to talk over our life but I do believe that it does have an impact on our life. If you give a child in elementary a cell phone they attempt to do what they see or heard everyone else is doing rather it is bad or good and if there is not parental supervisor anything can happen. People will always fear new things and ways of communication just as they did TV and internet but with time we all find ways to balance out our usage and these things have become helpful in many ways.

I am not a networked individual I prefer face-to face interaction or talking over texting. I really do not use email or IM other than work and I do not use social network at all. I agree with the findings that girls are more active with texting and cell phone usage than boys. I was troubled that parents of girls are more likely to monitor behaviors because boys do just as much as girls and all children should be monitored. However, these findings go along with normal assumption that girls have to be watched more than boys.

According to Rainie, Wellman, Baym and other communication researchers, the notion that CMC users spend the majority of their time alone in dark rooms with their computers is a myth. Baym claims that most people use texting, email, social networking sites, etc. to enhance their face-to-face relationships, not to replace them. Rainie and Wellman make the case that people are not hooked on communication devices, but rather communication with each other. This is not a new trend, but the desire is now magnified more than ever before because of the fact that CMC and new technology afford us the opportunity to communicate faster, more often and with a wider of network of people.

Rainie and Wellman also introduce the idea of “networked individualism”. This concept suggests that the groups with which we identify with have become more personalized to each individual. Take, for instance, the example of mobile phones. According to the Lenhart study, approximately 75% of teens have cell phones. Regardless of our age, when we receive calls to our mobile phones, the calls come directly to us. Before the rise of cell phones, calls would come to our homes through a landline telephone. Our connection point then was part of a cohesive unit – the family. Now, we are each individual units and can customize our networks accordingly. Wellman had a funny example during his commentary on Wisconsin public radio: If Romeo and Juliet had mobile phones, they’d probably still be alive.

One of the issues that Baym and others discussed on WBUR Boston public radio was the fear that CMC is ruining our abilities to communicate with each other in real life, face-to-face situations. One of the callers remarked it’s sad to see five individuals seated around a conference table at work, all looking at their cell phones and not talking. Baym challenged this caller and said she couldn’t imagine this would ever happen unless there was a break of some sort. She also argued against the idea that we are drastically different people online vs. offline. Although our methods of communication might be slightly different, we’re still speaking English and still relating to one another in similar ways.

Wellman, Baym, and others remarked that many of the common fears about new technology are fears as old as time. People are always afraid something new is going to destroy our current way of life, whether it’s writing letters, watching television or communicating via the internet. Yet, here we are today, still functioning and still communicating. It’s up to individuals to find balance in the time they spend communicating online and face-to-face. But this is no different than finding balance in our study and television watching habits or something else of the like. One day, these days will be the good old days.

This topic for this week was very interesting to me personally because I know so many people who try to use humor online to look cool and to fit in with the usual crowd. AIM was horribly slow when it first hit the communication circuit. I remember the first time I saw AIM and instatntly thought to myself this is an exciting way of communicating. As I read throughout the readings, I felt that Baron was against AIM and how people try to be funny during conversations. This is just my opinion. He did state that communication is a “Platform for self exprseeion.”and I do agree with him. Using humor in all types of communication is sometimes necessary because it either spices up the conversation or breaks down a barrier of akward silence.

Davison’s essay about internet memes and how it is incredibly high in speed as far as communicating with humor made me realize that regardless of the conversation, humor is seen acroos the board for the receiver and the encoder. Everyone in the world can go on facebook, twitter, instagram, etc. and see internet memes and analyze from their views on humor. I personally use humor a lot just to show that I am not always serious and that I can be a great person for business purposes and personal purposes. Emoticons and abbreviations are great tools of humor because that what mostly people use in order to display humor. Humor is now becoming a natural position for all types of communication.

Reading Baron’s chapter was very interesting to me because I remember when AIM first came out when I was still in elementary school. But, I never used it that much. Reading about the away messages was interesting because it is true that sometimes you can be trying to convey more than that you are just away from the computer. In one case, you could post that you may or may not be sleeping which could prompt people to message you even though they know there is a possibility you would not message back. Another example is that you couldmake it seem like you were out having fun when you were actually sitting at home. The funny thing about this is that I have actually done this on Facebook. On nights where I didn’t have anything to do or where I was feeling depressed, I would post a status making it sound like I was having the time of my life. I am an optimistic person so if you go through my statuses, I am generally always happy and in an upbeat mood. I don’t like the people that are debbie downers and constantly complaining. I prefer to confront my problems with people head on rather than wasting time posting about it on Facebook. I would rather be in a good mood on Facebook. Baron’s assumption that people can portray theirselves in whatever way they want to on their away messages/profiles is very true.

Joseph Ducreux

A famous portrait entitled, “Portrait de l’artiste sous les traits d’un moqueur,” or “Self-portrait of the artist in the guise of a mockingbird” dates back to 1793. It is a remarkably detailed self portrait by highly respected French painter Joseph Ducreux, who once worked for the court of Louis XVI. However, before two years ago, few would recognize his work.

Today, many identify Ducreux’s famous “selfie,” not as a famous work of art, but as a meme. Because the artist’s clothing, hairstyle, and accessories making him easily identifiable as an 18th century figure, people began adding captions to the portrait which re-phrased the words of famous hip-hop/pop songs in antiquated language. For example, instead of “Teach me how to Dougie,” Ducreux asks, “Instruct me in the the art of dancing the Douglas.”

In his passage on meme’s, Patrick Davison discusses how many memes are artifacts from the web which, unlike content from places such as YouTube or Wikipedia, avoid attribution. In other words, it is often difficult or impossible to discern their origins. He asks, “…why do certain memes eschew attribution?” However, it would seem that one would be hard pressed to find any memes which identify the author by naming the author, which is how Davison chooses to define attribution.

Perhaps we can identify Mr. Ducreux simply by doing a little research into his painting, however, we’ll never know who chose to use his painting for a little bit of harmless, humorous virtual vandalism. Mr. Davison was right to observe this. But, perhaps he was wrong to restrict his observation to only some memes.

Every time I log into Facebook, I see so many people who are trying to be witty through their statuses. I’ve always found it humorous (and not in the way they are aiming for). So, I thought it was very interesting how Baron analyzed away messages on instant messengers. I definitely remember trying to be funny on my AIM profile, and saying that I was “away” just so I could talk to my closest friends without having to respond to anyone else.

Social media gives teenagers such a great tool to mold their appearance to the world, and as Baron writes, away messages provide “a platform for self-expression” (78). I think people often use humor to try and stand out from their peers, and to cover up their inadequacies. And at the same time, humor is a safety net for people to avoid talking about serious matters. Baron writes, “Several [teenagers] felt they had to justify themselves when their away messages were not funny or creative, typically explaining that they lacked time or energy to craft amusing postings” (79). One AIM member even posted a long list of away message tips, saying that “humor is the only way to go- i’m not looking for a deeper understand of life, or a little tug on the heart strings from my instant messenger” (Baron 80).

Davison’s essay about internet memes was also interesting, and made me think about how easy it is to be funny online. Davison writes that humor is passed along online at an “incredible” speed, and that nearly everyone in the world has access to the memes that are posted on public sites (123). Instead of having to tell a joke in person, someone can publish a meme or a funny Facebook status, and they get instant gratification through comments and shares. This makes humor easier and more accessible, but it also puts a greater pressure on people to be as funny as those around them.