Nerd Talk

In her article, OH NO! I’M A NERD!, Lori Kendall discusses the use of the MUD BlueSky and how the participants are very often white males and how they act in the cyber community. Kendall talks about men’s power. They tend to have power over technology as well as over women. While doing her research, Kendall noticed that most the participants worked with computers or have done so in the past. And a lot of the conversations these guys were having revolved around technology including new software and technological advice. Having this common interest helps them form bonds in their community. So why all the computer talk? Kendall refers to Turkle when saying that these men are obsessing over technology to compensate for their lack of power in the physical world. Maybe they could be the hero and save the damsel in distress from her computer crash… It’s a possibility.

In the space it is clear to see that the users are identifying themselves as nerds. It is not an onlooker calling them that in a negative way. These ‘nerds’ are accepting the way they are. They may not be the strongest and may never get the girls, but you see this play into their conversations. They joke around with each other. Asking on another if they ‘Spiked her’ when bringing up girls. Because everyone knows the answer will be no, the question is not seen as offensive. Kendall ends her article by discussing the ‘whiteness’ of the group. Even people of different ethnicities say they are white, just trapped in say a Chinese body. Claiming to be white online makes them seem like one of the norms and deters the harassment to someone else. And if a user does not define his or her race, it will be assumed that they are white based on the high number of white users.

When reading this article and thinking about what we typically think of as a nerd, my mind went straight to computers. Whenever I have a problem or question concerning my computer, the people I turn to are always guys. No question. I wouldn’t ask either of my best friends, who are girls, to come look at my computer. They may know what to do, yes. But I would not look to a girl first for answers to a computer problem. I just wouldn’t. Even in stores it’s the same way. I am in Best Buy quite often and I find that there are hardly ever any girls working the computer section. Instead, they are always at the check-out and customer service counters. Maybe this is because people feel more ensured of what they are buying by having a guy there explaining all the technological things.

Turkle's thoughts on Communities in Cyberspace

The article I chose is Virtuality and Its Discontents: Searching for Community in Cyberspace (Adapated from Life on the Screen) by Sherry Turkle. This article is all about the communities online that people are using to form bonds that they are not getting in the real world. She begins by describing her experience in Dred’s Bar, a virtual community, where her and a friend ordered drinks, listen the DJ, and hit the dance floor doing the tango and waltz. She explains how places like this seem so real because it is merely another dimension of mediated space, similar to television which we are so used to seeing. Computers are natural to us, we identify with places on the screen. The article goes on further to show the effects this is having on our culture. One thing being that we are retreating further into our homes than ever before. We don’t have leave the house for entertainment, shopping, or even good conversation. Also, with so many things available online, are we losing a sense of the real? Turkle describes how an active, moving robotic or computerized crocodile may be more appealing than a real one that just sleeps all day. Through simulation we are making the fake seem better than the real.

One question that arises with virtual communities is who will govern it? Should there be rules? And if there are who will enforce them? Say someone is sexually assaulted online, what is there to do? This is also the same dilemma if someone murders or steals. If someone kills someone online, then deletes their MUD character, what has the real life person done? Nothing. This raises the debate of civil order in virtual spaces. This was seen in a MUD called Habitat where some felt users should be allowed to have guns and others disagreed. This led to a vote where a sheriff was elected. The MUD users were immersing themselves as citizens of this virtual community, devoting all their free time to it.

We see so many virtual users, so how can affect our real world experiences? A virtual space lets you authenticate yourself. It also allows you to do most anything online, in the safety of your home. Forming a relationship online could become stronger than any real life relationship, and if things don’t work out, you don’t have to worry about running into them in the real world. Turkle sums up by saying that one way to use these virtual communities to enhance our real life is not to reject the screen life we have. We can use the virtual communities to improve our real ones.

I found this entire article very interesting and very true. We all use the internet to get things done. We send an email off to our family instead of going to visit them. We order a new pair of shoes online instead of actually going out to the store. We do so much online that for some that where they spend the majority of their time. Why is this? It could be for the sake of time. Doing your errands online takes a sufficiently smaller amount of time than actually driving around town all afternoon. Also, it could be because of the bonds we form online. It seems as though no one ever has enough time to get things done, yet we all have enough time to get online. So instead of hanging out with our friends or family physically, we will IM them or something.

As far as the governing of virtual communities, I feel that because people are so involved in their virtual communities that they are willing to follow rules, or vote on certain issues. If someone is not complying I suppose others will not treat them with the respect they give to other members of the community. I think virtual communities are really reflecting real life communities. People look online to find hobbies and friends that without the internet they may not have met. Because the lines between virtual and real communities are no longer distinct, I think the rules of the real world are carrying over to virtual spaces and vice versa.

http://hevra.haifa.ac.il/~soc/lecturers/talmud/files/547.htm

Chapter 5

At the very end of the chapter (p 199-201), Nakamura describes how the internet has allowed people of color to intervene in aspects of their culture industry. She includes the example of a campaign against Abercrombie and Fitch when they produced a T-shirt line depicting stereotypical images of Asians accompanied by text, which offended the Asian culture. Email campaigns were initiated immediately and "spread like wild fire." The petition was very effective, resulting in the removal of the T-shirt line and an apology form A&F to the Asian American community.

Nakamura sums up the chapter by looking at everything people of color contribute to the internet. This includes things like posting videos, creating websites, writing political messages and much more. This changes the way we think of people of color. Instead of consumers, they are producers of the internet content. With Latinos and African Americans being the "fastest growing groups of internet users," we can clearly see that they are no loner merely passive users. And with more people engaging in the internet, the meaning of participation on the internet is shifting from merely checking email and web surfing to producing the content.

I think that this chapter points out several interesting things about the Internet. First off, it shows just how efficient the Internet can be. We can see through the illustrations of the petitions just how quickly word got around. This is true for most news, big or not. One person might mention something, then someone else blogs about it, while yet another person vlogs about it. Word will spread and soon enough everyone knows the news, however important (or not important) it may be.

Second, throughout the chapter, and especially at the end, Nakamura describes the level of participation users of the Internet are at today. We are no longer a culture of passive users, especially the Net Generation. I see this in my own life. I have made a website and I post blogs as well as check my email regularly and occasionally surf YouTube videos. True, most of the content I've published on the web is for school, but still, I think this proves the point Nakamura is making. We are no longer just using the Internet to do research for our homework but using it to publish our homework assignments. And I think that as technologies are advancing, we are seeing more and more demographics jumping on the band wagon because if they don't learn how to use the new technology, they will have a hard time catching up down the road.

Who Holds the Power?

Throughout Chapter 3, Nakamura mentions several ways in which blacks and whites were portrayed in movies such as The Matrix and Minority Report. Nakamura talks about the different ways whites and blacks performed their jobs in The Matrix. She describes how Link, a black character, types on a keyboard while Zion, who is dressed cleanly in all white, is linked into the computer through gesture (99). These movies also relate whiteness to power. The lead characters in each film are white males, and everyone else is secondary to them. On page 98 Nakamura quotes Richard Dyer who says,

"the equation of being white with being human secures a position of power."

Now I know we are supposed to bring up another movie to support Nakamura, but what came to my mind when I was trying to think of a movie was Bruce Almighty (a guy who often complains about God is given almighty power from God himself... simply put if anyone hasn't seen it). This movie is about God, the all-knowing, all-powerful, supreme being. And who is he played by?? A black guy, Morgan Freeman. This completely goes against Nakamura's point that blacks are normally secondary to whites in movies. In this movie the black guy is the most powerful guy in the world!

This movie does support her point in several ways though. For one, when Bruce shows up to meet God, everything is white. The room is painted white, white columns, white floor, white furniture, God dressed in white. And I guess I wouldn't expect anything different, not to be racist. But going with the God theme, white, to me, represents purity and good, which is what God is all about. And ultimately the guy who is given God's power is white.

But I guess the question is why the directors chose to cast a Black actor?? Was that their plan all along or did Morgan Freeman just fit the role best? If God were a played by a white actor would the meaning be the same??

I think that the fact that they cast a black actor as God shows how our culture is changing. We are becoming more accepting of different races, and morphing into a melting pot of cultures. It is becoming a world that is less black and white, no longer saying that any one race is better than the other. We did elect a black president, which has to say something about our values as a culture.

We Are All Computer People.

I chose Sherry Turkle's article titled, How Computers Change the Way We Think....

which you can read for yourself at..

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~comp300/documents/HowComputersChangeThinking.pdf

In this article, Sherry Turkle is discussing how technology is changing the way we think, and she is focusing on computers in particular and what they are doing to us. She also addresses the issue of privacy. Nowadays most everyone is using the web for blogging, email, or other purposes, and they are losing their privacy. It seems as though college aged people are less concerned about their privacy compared to the older generations who didn’t grow up with as much information out there on the web for most anyone to see. It is the younger generation that is more willing to put more personal information on social sites, and they don’t seem to care much about their loss of privacy. Also, people are representing themselves through avatars on different websites and games. Some even get so used to using their avatars that they forget how share feelings in the real world. She explains how computers are being introduced to children at elementary ages. At this young age, children are learning to understand more than just the content, and we have to wonder how this is affecting their thinking. Because of word processors, are we relying too much on them and no longer thinking ahead?? Whatever the case, we need to accept that technology is continually evolving, and we must form our cultures around this growing technology. Turkle ends her article by explaining that there is no longer a group of “computer people”, or trained techies, but everyone is now a computer person.

This article had many points that relate to what we have talked about or we are going to talk about in class I’m sure. One thing that first popped out at me was when she discussed the use of avatars. Possibly because we just discussed this. Turkle brought up the issue that a dominant use of avatars may hinder our real life experiences. I think this is somewhat true as well. If all somebody does is sit at home, hiding behind their avatar, they may forget how to act in the physical world. Maybe I shouldn’t say ‘hiding’. I guess I could say using their avatar for communication more than themselves personally, in ‘real life’. It makes me wonder if we will eventually lose all face to face communication.

I also find the issue of privacy very interesting and kinda scary. We have talked about this topic in DTC 375, so those of you in that class, feel free to skip ahead. The idea had come up that because of technology we are becoming a private-less culture I guess you could say. Because so many people are willing to publish more and more personal information on the web, they are losing all rights to their privacy. And it’s like they don’t even care, which is the scary part. The younger generation of internet users are so used to putting anything and everything on the web that they are immune to the fact that they have virtually no privacy whatsoever. I am not one of those people who post their every move in their Facebook status or Twitter update. For that fact I don’t even have a Twitter. I find it kind of weird that people I don’t know would ‘follow’ me. I’m not against Twitter or anything, it’s just not for me. I seldom personal information in my Facebook profile, because I like to feel that I still have some privacy. But with the way things are going these days, the up and coming generation of tech users will have no sense of privacy. And the only way to gain any privacy is to avoid technology altogether, which seems next to impossible.

So back to the article and how computers are changing the way we think…

I think computers are making us somewhat lazy. We no longer have to think before we write things out. If we don’t like how something is worded, we can change it in an instant. Backspace!

Computers are causing us to think in digital world mode, not real life mode. And I think we should cherish the face to face interaction we get now because who knows how long it will last.

hey team turkle!!

I'm choosing the following article...

How Computers Change the Way We Think

(this is different from my earlier post..)