The End

My experience with this class has been a positive one. Before embarking on the study of communication and culture in cyberspace, I hadn’t thought of how computer mediated communication impacts my life. I use the computer and internet daily, obviously I am impacted by technology. But my acceptance of this technology, my total acceptance void of questioning, is what Postman discusses in his novel. It is how our society is becoming a technopoly. It is also how computers will take over the world.
I take away from this class lots of factual information. I had no idea the history of computers, for instance. But more importantly, I believe, I have become aware of technologies, my interaction to them and how they shape the way in which I view the world. I will try to maintain my awareness as I go on with my life. I will still be using the computer and the internet, but now I will use them with the knowledge of how they affect me. Being aware of their power, I will be better aware of my actions and the decisions I make.
As for blogging….I enjoyed it but won’t continue. I have been curious about it for a while now, and feel as though knowledge of blogs is a good skill to have. However, blogging is very time consuming and I have other priorities right now. They also, and I didn’t know this, are excellent little insights into the world. Whether it’s learning a different point of view or reading factual information, blogs offer more than just the internet diaries I always thought they were.
I enjoyed the way the class was set up. Again, I am glad to have learned of blogging. I also enjoyed how the class used discussion boards.
All in all, I think this topic was interesting to learn about and important to know of in our ever more technological society. Computers are here for good, but they are only what we make of them. We need to be aware of our actions and dependence on technology. We should learn how computers effect our communication.

The Solitaire Empidemic

In You’ve Got Mail, Meg Ryan’s boyfriend mentions a newspaper article he read. The article said that Solitaire had been removed from the Federal computers of Virginia because no work had been for six months as everyone was tucked away in their cubicles playing Solitaire. For this assignment I decided to do some investigating and see if this actually happened. And it did! Sorta.
The article I found “Is that a spreadsheet on your screen – or solitaire?” written by Patrik Jonsson for the Christian Science Monitor, tells of Senator Allen of North Carolina and his quest to rid all federal workers’ computers of Solitaire and Mindsweeper. By doing this, he claims that millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money would be saved. (I always love how the term “taxpayer’s money” is used. As though I am supposed to now be roused, hunting for my pitchfork.) The article also discusses ways in which the solitaire crisis has been “solved” without eliminating the game. One way, the amount of people working is cut so that each person has more responsibility and, consequently, less time for games.
Should Solitaire be removed from computers, should it monitored somehow? I work for an accountant. I work with two other women in one room. The accountant works across the hall in another room. The three of us have our own desks, but they each have a computer and I don’t. One of the women, let’s call her Susan, uses the computer quite a bit for personal reasons, though she accomplishes a lot. The other woman does not (she accomplishes a lot too.) I think Susan uses the computer a bit much. She is, after all, at work, being paid to write up bills and fill out forms, not to email. But am I just jealous that I don’t have that option?
I have mixed feelings about people misusing computer games during work hours. Of course I don’t want to be paying anyone to play Solitaire; however, I also wouldn’t want to be trapped in a job, stuck at a computer, in a tiny cubicle all day. I would want a mini breaks, I would want to play solitaire.
This article is not quite the “metacommunication” Wood and Smith talk about. Solitaire is not a form of communication. However, the article does bring about the question of personal privacy and the computer. When does work end and Solitaire begin? The computer has become essential to businesses and bureaucracies, and yet, the easy access to Solitaire on that same computer has become a hindrance. Would workers really work harder, better, more efficiently without Solitaire? I doubt it. I believe they would twiddle their thumbs or doodle or play hang man with one another. The computer and the internet have not created new problems in the workplace, they have, simply, put a little modern twist on old issues.

In my high school English class, we read Fahrenheit 451, a wonderful book. Our teacher set up a discussion board online for us to post and respond to each other’s thoughts on the novel. We, a tight knit group of 30 living in small town Illinois, took this discussion board and and blew it right out of Fahrenheit 451 and into our everyday lives. Sure we discussed the book, but slowly our posts grew to include funny snipets about what happened to our waffles that morning, movies we’d seen recently and essays that needed to to complained about. Our teacher, dear Mrs. Heth, ended our discussions and they flew further and further from the book. And so, Swifty, ever so savy in technology, created a separate discussion board, for us to discuss…….anything. Soon the board expaned from 30 members to 50. Soon, school was over, summer was passing and we were going off to college. My family and I moved to Oregon, Tom and Jacob went to Chicago, so many with to the University of Illinois, some to Illinois State, some to Missouri, one to Boston, Swifty moved to Arizona. Our discussion board began to hold more meaning than silly snipets. We shared our lives through this discussion board. Our discussion board eventually faded away into nothingness. But what happened on the discussion board couldn’t have happened without the internet. Sending letters would not have had the same instantaneous impact. Conference calls could have been made with 50 people scattered across the country. Even with so many ways to connect on the internet, the discussion board stood out among the rest. A treasure. We had only each other to impress, each other who we knew so well. Facebook contained many new faces and strangers. Myspace had too many gadgets and gizmos. As our lives changed, and we moved away, the discussion board held us together. In the discussion board we could run away from our new responsibilities and lives, we could run back to our much simpler high school days.

For me, the discussion board stands out as one my most enjoyable times using the internet. No one hassled you if you didn’t respond, no one made you feel bad about slacking on your facebook comments. The experience was unique from other discussion boards or online networks in that we were already a community. The internet only enhanced our friendships.

It seems silly to me that people would advocate for everyone to have the internet, as though it is a right. Of course, who am I to say? I have the internet. My experiences with the internet have been positive whether for work , school or fun. If I didn’t have the internet, I know I would want to. As society as a whole moves further and further from traditional forms of communication, as the internet becomes the traditional form of communication, isn’t it right to be sure all members of society are able to participate? Slowly, we are moving from treating the internet as a luxury to it being a commodity we take for granted. My discussion group would not have occurred without the internet. Our teacher set it up originally, was it presumptuous for her to do so? As teachers begin assuming everyone has the internet, as stores hand out surveys you must take online, then maybe we should stop and consider that not everyone has the internet. We need to decide, if this is going to be how our nation communicates within itself, if the internet is becoming required in order to function within society, then perhaps in that way it is a right.

What the heck do we use the internet for anyway

I stuck within the same family as I set out to do my interviews. I chose my boyfriend’s family as his mom, Toni and grandmother, Gigi, are so close. With my three interviewees lined up, I set out to find out what the heck people use the internet for.

 

            Daniel, my boyfriend, age 31, uses the internet with the most variety. He reads the news, buys books, looks up his favorite musicians for album release dates, obsessively checks his grades online, emails his friends, has a MySpace that is now defunct and looks up directions. “I don’t even think about the internet as something special, I take it for granted. I get mad when it’s slow.” This anger, I’ll have you know, is interestingly similar to road rage. Toni, age 56, uses the internet often, though without the variety. “Oh I email, instant message Kody,” her stepson who lives in Florida, “Sometimes I’ll look something up online, see what’s on sale at Macy’s.” Her mother, Gigi, recently had Toni set the internet up on her computer. Toni will tell you this was disaster. Gigi now has the internet. “I have the internet. I just don’t use it very much. I do like to play dominos on it, but that’s about it.”

            Out of the three, I would say Toni is most comfortable communicating on the internet, as this is her primary use. Daniel, although he emails on occasion, doesn’t communicate on the internet. “I have that watch website I look at, but I never post on it. Those guys travel around Europe and drop money on watches I wish I had for rent. What do I have to say compared to them?” He has been faithfully reading this website for years, he has favorite people who post even, but he doesn’t feel comfortable contributing, still. Gigi does not use the internet for communicating and Toni does not wish to teach her. “You should’ve seen how long it took me to set it up for her,” Toni groaned, “She kept asking all these questions about it. What is it? How does it work? Where does it all come from? I finally said ‘Mom, even if I knew, I wouldn’t explain it to you.”

            What do they think of the internet…what do I think of the internet…

            Daniel, like me, has reached a point where we both remember what life was like without the internet while simultaneously not able to imagine life without it. Toni likes the internet, but could live without it. “My phone though, I don’t think I could live with my phone.” Gigi says she doesn’t need the internet to play dominos. She doesn’t really like the internet. She might have Toni get rid of it. (Toni will not be happy to hear this.)

            Postman discusses the vocabulary shift that occurred in November 1998. This, he remarks, began the use of words such as “virus” in regards to computers. Describing the computer in such humanistic ways builds up the importance of the computer. By using the same words you’d use to describe your sick child to describe your computer, an emotional undercurrent begins developing between human and computer. I know I treat my computer in such a way. I even go as far to describe its “moods.” Computers are only as important as we make them. We could collectively turn them off, throw them into a landfill and be done with it, but we chose not to. Why? Do they make life easier? They have embedded themselves so far into our culture it would quite an undertaking to dig them out. Gigi would have no problem throwing her computer away. Toni, in using it to connect with people, would have a harder time throwing it out. Daniel and I both would have tremendous difficulty throwing it away, not only because of entertainment, but because we both use the computer for school and work. Perhaps we could, perhaps we could toss them out. But could Daniel’s eight year old daughter? She doesn’t know a life without both extensive use of computers and internet. As the generations go by, it become harder and harder to do without computers and the fact we can’t do away with them could be quite destructive if we don’t change their importance. We created them, but can we take them back?

The sweet disposition of online communities

A few weeks ago, I came down with a cold/what-felt-like-a-mono-relapse. The only thing that seemed to my body regain its former energy level was hours and hours of sleep coupled with Will & Grace re-runs. Laughter, as I’m sure you’ve all heard, is the best medicine. I decided when my nose started running and my throat started scratching, to include hot toddies in my flawless plan for recovery. Unfortunately, I did not know how to make a hot toddy and because this is 2009 and not 1992 I googled a recipe.
What interest me about this site are simply the recipes, but the conversations that come along with them. The hot toddy recipe, for example, has a 3 year long conversation attached to it. The posts are mostly feedback for the original recipe, new hot toddy recipes or response to the ongoing debate about what liquor should be used. A 3 year long conversation with people from all over the world, at different times, massed together for my reading pleasure. And this, this ability to have a 3 year long conversation is what makes discussion groups so fascinating to me. I am not much of a drinker, however, this web site contained a lifestyle forum as well.
At first, I hesitated to join. I, usually full of self confidence, had never joined a forum like this and felt that I had nothing to contribute and worried about what other people would think about me. I had to step back and look at my reactions. What other people would think about me? They couldn’t even see me. They would only know about me what I let them know about me. What was I so timid about? I wasn’t sure, I joined still timid.
I found that the best way to assimilate to the group was to respond to questions people posted before posting something myself. I was amazed at the range of conversations and information that was posted. Travel questions (oo oooo I’ve lived in Colorado, I can answer that question), comments about TV shows (I tend to only watch “reality” shows on Bravo or E, so I could not participate as much) and comments on books (I could definitely participate here). I found that I did try to morph my writing style to fit the template provided. The posts were short, funny but had a touch of philosophy to them. These were well thought out posts, not just slapped together mumbo jumbo contaminating facebook pages.
Had I found an “online community” like Wood & Smith said exist? What I found interesting was the way in which people behaved online. They were kindly, smart, sincere. What? Why doesn’t this exist in real life? It was as if all the members of this discussion group had read and adhered to Wood & Smith’s guidelines of how to act online, only, instead of acting as they would in real life, everyone was nicer. This, I decided, was due to the fact that when you’re a member of an online community, you get to choose when to participate. Unlike your neighbors, members of your online only “see” you when you want them too. If you’re tired, you don’t have to post. Because of this, this ability to choose when to participate, I found the “online community” a bit sweeter than my physical community.

Researching

“I have no responsibility for the human consequences of my decisions. I am only responsible for the efficiency of my part of the bureaucracy, which must be maintained at all costs.”

 

The previous quote, Postman p. 87, stuck in my mind while doing this week’s reading. For me this one quote embodies the growing attitude among American’s today and tells of what I believe is the greatest problem with the increase of “technopolies;” our inability as a culture to see the “big picture.” Without seeing the whole, we lose sight of our importance as individuals. Instead, the bureaucracy becomes the most important, and we merely replaceable cogs. I began to wonder if the world has always been this way, or if bureaucracies developed recently. These wonderings seemed to lend themselves perfectly to our next blog assignment….researching. 

To avoid any conundrum with sources for an academic paper, I have an equation: academic paper = academic database. If I know very little about the topic, I’ll Google it. Yes, I’ll look on Wikipedia. And so, I looked bureaucracy up on Wikipedia. The “Origins” section of the article further narrowed my search. A German Baron von Grimm was quoted a couple of times, once relating back to Postman’s idea. Grimm was quoted saying, “here the offices, clerks, secretaries, inspectors and intendants are not appointed to benefit the public interest, indeed the public interest appears to have been established so that offices might exist.”  Though this information relates to my research topic, I know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I use this first stage of my research so I know what themes or main events to look for in my more academic research. I always evaluate a source’s credibility after a certain point. Basic facts, such as birthdays, I will look up on Wikipedia. Anything information beyond the basic facts I look for other websites. Scrolling down the results from the search engine, I hunt for anything ending in .org or .edu. The next phase in research was looking up Baron von Grimm….Which was completely fruitless. If Googling Baron von Grimm resulted in no relevant information, then it’s time to switch topics. I decided to stick to a more general topic, like the history of bureaucracies. Maybe someone, somewhere, can write a dissertation on Baron von Grimm, but that someone isn’t me. At this point, I start looking through academic databases for articles – scholarly or otherwise. These are the sources I will use to further develop my thesis and write my paper. The three articles I found on the history of bureaucracy that I would use for my paper are “The Ups and Down of Bureaucratic Organization,” “Some Enchanted Bureaucracy” and “Sovereignty, Interest and Bureaucracy in the Modern State.”

The internet is a beautiful and horrible thing. The beauty lies in the ability of any person, anywhere to find information on virtually any topic. The possible horror of the internet lies in the same ability. The internet, for better or worse, is not leaving and people need to learn how to evaluate a site’s credibility. Although this is taught in library skills classes, it should be taught as soon as children start writing reports. The internet is a valuable tool, but skills are needed in order to use this tool to its full potential.

Olsen, Johan P. “The Ups and Down s of Bureaucratic Organizations.” Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 11 Issue 1, 2008: 13-37. Academic  Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Oregon State University Lib., Bend, OR. 8 Feb 2009. <http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/ehost/search>

 

Poulos, James. “Some Enchanted Bureaucracy.” Society.  May , 2008: 294-298. Academic  Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Oregon State University Lib., Bend, OR. 8 Feb 2009. <http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/ehost/search>

Burns, Tom. “Sovereignty, Interests and Bureaucracy in the Modern State.” British Journal of Sociology. Dec, 2008: 13-37. Academic  Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Oregon State University Lib., Bend, OR. 8 Feb 2009. <http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/ehost/search>

 

 

Letter writing is not like riding a bike

When I sat down to write my letter of appreciation (to my aunt) I thought to myself, “when was the last time I wrote a letter? When was the last time I received one?” Cards don’t count. Cards are not the same as letters. Cards say – I remembered it was your birthday, and you are close enough to me that I wanted and/or felt obliged to do something so that you knew that I knew that it was your birthday. Therefore, I went out, bought this card, signed it, maybe wrote a little something, and sent it off. As you can see, the $2.49 spent plus postage equates to something less tangible but more genuine. Letters, on the other hand, say infinitely more. Letters are used nowadays to convey love, friendship, hatred, sympathy or tell of something horrible which has happened. Except for the most obvious blatant exception: Christmas letters, which are used in a sing-song sort of way to tell all receivers my family is insurmountably better than yours.

The letter to my aunt was quite difficult and took much more time than I expected. I encountered numerous problems. Let’s list them.

1. My pen did not have a back space key.

2. My paper did not have red squiggly lines to indicate misspelled words.

3. Ditto green squiggly lines to indicate poor grammar.

4. My penmanship was certainly not as clear as times new roman’s is.

5. Nowhere on my paper could I find a way to highlight a word and have numerous synonyms pop up to immediately raise my IQ.

6. When I sat for more than 3 minutes without writing, my paper did not turn into a scene from outer space to make me feel like I was flying.

Despite these set backs, I felt a wondrous sense of accomplishment once the letter was sent. A feeling I did not get sending my sister a similarly appreciative email. I rarely use emails to send serious messages and I found the task difficult. I had to struggle not to include that I was only writing her because of an assignment I had to do. It seemed incredibly inappropriate to be sending off such a serious heartfelt email. My feelings of inappropriateness were, in this case at least, correct. The day after sending my sister this email I got a text message on my phone asking “What was that all about?”

The more I thought about this experience, the more philosophical I became. If I never write letters it can logically be deduced that my letter writing (which did occur in the past) has been replaced with emailing. I never send serious emails I feel it’s inappropriate. Therefore, it can be concluded that I never have anything serious to say. Is that true? Do I not have anything serious to say? I tried to console myself with the idea that I have serious phone conversations, but it only worked a little.

Is emailing destroying the age old art of letter writing? For me it is. I don’t write emails in the same manner I write letters. Emailing is quicker and lighter than letter writing. Like I feel sending serious emails is inappropriate, I would feel similarly strange sending off a letter full of silly fluff. Is this, I wonder, what Postman meant by a Technopoly? He writes, “Technopoly eliminates alternatives to itself.” And how does this affect my ability to relate with those around me?

Before this assignment, I would have argued that computers and the internet may impact my abilities to communicate in minor ways, for the most part, I communicate in the same way I always have…but using different means. This however is not the case. In Online Communication Wood and Smith use the example of emails exchanged within a company to show that communicators through emails were “more likely to exhibit self-absorbed behavior, to display little differentiation among people of different status and, and to act more uninhibited.” This, they argue, is largely due to lack of social context clues that dominate face to face interactions. But if these emails were so similar in this respect, and I had a hard time writing a serious email to my sister, then where is the social clue that tells us emails are to be used for silly play and not serious means. And if emailing is not used for serious purposes and letter writing isn’t as popular, then do we ever communicate seriously through written words?

Facebook…friend or foe?

I avoided Facebook for years. The stories I heard about this forum of connection all had themes of hostility. Sara wouldn’t accept Zach, her ex-boyfriend, as her friend and now he’s upset. Liz said something about Zach on Trevor’s Facebook and now Sara thinks Liz likes Zach and made a snide comment on…..You get the idea. Facebook also seemed to be a way to collect lots of “friends” and appear very popular, while not actually being friends with anyone. However, after much pressure from cousins, my sister, and some of my friends in other states, I gave in and made a Facebook.

Immediately, I realized I did not know how to act on Facebook. A whole new set of etiquette rules applied in this realm and I did not know a single one. For instance, how often did you have to send messages to someone? Was it required that you comment on their pictures? How often should you post pictures? Should you immediately befriend everyone you can think of so you are not considered rude? What happens if someone asks to be your friend but you don’t want to be theirs? Should you accept them as friends? I fiddled around with it, found some friends and started researching. (As a young college student, 21, most of my friend are of the same age and therefore my research is only that of other 21ish college students. I recognize there could be other experiences on Facebook, I just haven’t experience them.) Here is what I found so far.

1. It is important to mass a friend base the size of a small town.

2. Equally important to post pictures of the parties held at your apartment, local bar, other people’s apartments ect. Should be noticeably drunk.

3. Anytime you and your girlfriends get together looking particularly done up, take picture to show everyone not only how hot you are, but how hot the people you hang out with are.

4. If you are dating someone, important that your Profile Picture contain the two of you. If you are a man, this is not as important.

Facebook helps us act the popular girl in high school. With Facebook we are all popular, well loved, with an impossible amount of friends. The selectivity of Facebook allows one to post and show only the coolest, most fun side of themselves. You would never know that my cousin Aimee really enjoys having pajama and movie night with her roommates while all have on no makeup, and their ugly pajamas. In accordance with her Facebook, Aimee is always fun, always on the go, always looking her best and always surrounded by a gaggle of long legged girls in satin halter tops. But this is just not the case. Much like models are airbrushed to be featured in magazines, Facebook allows us to “airbrush” our personalities. The result: a superficial view of our friends, ourselves and the world around us. Instead of admitting and accepting that we sometimes would rather read a book and go to bed early, we show only the most out-going energetic side of ourselves in a crazed attempt to out-do one another. In this environment, Facebook becomes not a way to keep us connected, but another medium in which to compete; who has the most friends, a boyfriend, the most parties to attend, the prettiest picture, the hottest girlfriend, the hottest friends in general. What, then is to be gained by all this?

Potentially, a lot of harm could come to someone on Facebook. Facebook’s combination of its bulletin board like “wall,” where your friends can post messages to you that all your other friends can see, virtual photo album, email-like messaging system and capacity for internet relay chat give users a plethora of tools in which they can connect. While this can be fun and convenient, it also gives those whose purpose is harmful that many more portals in which to do harm. Someone could easily change their name, post a picture of some one else as themselves, and gather a group of friends by claiming to be affiliated with a university or other organization. This person could become good “friends” with someone, by sending them messages, talking to them in real time, and sharing photos. Wood and Smith, authors of Online Communication, tell of a psychologist who pretended to be a woman named Julie online in a bulletin board like forum. When the women found who frequented this bulletin board found out Julie’s true identity, they were outraged. They became close to Julie only through text. Imagine, then, if you had text, images and real time conversations with someone, wouldn’t you be even more likely to believe you know the real them? Agreeing to meet the person could potentially be dangerous.

There are perks to Facebook as well. I have recently come into contact with someone I haven’t spoken to years and had no other way of getting in touch with them. It can, if used right, really help you stay connected with your friends and maintain close deep relationships. Like anything, Facebook is good in moderation and good if used correctly. I won’t ever have 723 friends, and I don’t want to. I ignored a friend request from someone I hardly knew and I don’t even feel rude about it. As with other forms of online communication, I would much rather talk to and be with these people in real life, but this is not always an option. Facebook lets us, even if it’s only an illusion, believe we have stayed connected to all those we wished to stay connected with.

Meg Ryan, Tom Hanks and true love

Meg Ryan. Tom Hanks. Sigh. Together again for a more modern romance. You’ve Got Mail, a romantic comedy that made even my boyfriend giggle. When reading the requirements for Assignment 2, I didn’t get past Option 1. “Rent You’ve Got Mail.” Well twist my arm.

You’ve Got Mail, for you poor souls who haven’t seen it, is a movie about two people who met in a chat room and started emailing one another. They both have agreed not to discuss personal or specific details with one another and have founded their relationship on emails about nothing. Meg Ryan plays Kathleen Kelly a woman who owns a children’s book store that becomes threatened when a mega-bookstore opens up around the corner. And who runs this mega-bookstore you ask? Why, Tom Hanks of course, who plays Joe Fox. F-O-X. Although they love talking to each other online, they do not get along in person. Of course, it being a romantic comedy, not getting along means they have somewhat flirty banter in a witty sort of way that would never happen in real life if you continually ran into the man who was putting you out of business. Joe Fox finds out Kathleen is this mysterious email woman, and continues their relationship both face to face and online. Eventually, they meet, they kiss and it’s great. Life is wonderful. Sigh.

The internet versions of Joe Fox and Kathleen Kelly are the best versions of themselves. Philosophical and thoughtful, they take time to notice the changing leaves, discuss the beauty of Starbucks and dreamily write of their lives. The real life versions of Joe Fox and Kathleen Kelly can be philosophical and thoughtful, of course, but they also must deal with the mundane bits of living that don’t necessarily permeate into cyberspace. Their non-internet selves do not get along. But this is due to the trivial fact that Joe Fox is putting Kathleen Kelly out of business. In fact, they initially met at Kathleen’s bookstore, neither knowing who the other was, and got along splendidly. But business got in the way and the two became rivals, while maintaining a close relationship online. After a while, Kathleen falls in love with internet-Joe while simultaneously developing a friendship with real live Joe and when the two meet, she is so happy that internet lover and friend are the same. Is this likely? Nope. It’s like a really extended E-Harmony commercial. I’m not saying you can’t meet someone online, meet them in person, and live happily ever after. But I am saying that it would be awful hard to meet someone online, meet them in person without your knowledge they are one in the same, be put out of business by them and then go on to live happily ever after (with a millionaire no less).

In Technopoly by Neil Postman, Postman writes,

“And so two opposing world-views – the technological and the traditional – coexisted in uneasy tension. The technological was the stronger, of course, but the traditional was there-still functional, still exerting influence, still too much alive to ignore.”

The idea of two world views colliding centers in the plotline of You’ve Got Mail. Traditional courtship, going to the girl’s house with flowers and talking to her face to face, is being challenged by technological advancement. Instead of the traditional way of dating, the two meet on the internet and without personal details, become quite close. Is internet dating going to take over? Is this how it’s going to be? I don’t think so. Because despite the ease of internet dating, despite being able to checklist off the qualities you want in your partner, we still interact face to face. You still have to meet sometime. Until we no longer need the presence of other human beings, just their words sent by computer, will traditional relationships disappear entirely. The internet may change the way we meet people but until it figures out a way for us to live with each other and not fight about dirty socks on the floor, will it change the core of our relationships.

Internet Abstinence

I have never thought of myself a big internet user. Quite oppositely, I would say that I am only a word processing and emailing sort of person when it comes to computers. I would say this in a haughty tone, as though my lack of computer related capabilities made me somehow more pure than others. My experience at abstaining from then internet, therefore, brought much to light about how often I use the internet, and consequently, that I am a liar.
I use the internet for school, whether it is for research, communicating with my professors or checking my tuition balance. I also use the internet for work. I am an accounting assistant and often need to look up government documents and tax laws. Of course we can’t leave out all the office bonding that takes place while we stand around my boss’s computer and watch funny video clips people send him in emails. Recreation wise, I used the internet for email and, more recently, Facebook. I also pay my bills and monitor my bank account online. This substantial paragraph obviously refutes my previous paragraph. I am not just an email sorta girl. I use the internet so often that I had to pick my 24 hour period in which I was to abstain from the internet very carefully. I chose Wednesday to be my day without the internet, a day that was to start at 9 o’clock in the morning (after I finished everything I needed to do online of course.)
Wednesday morning arrived, as I’m sure you all noticed, and I, having just finished my emailing, facebooking, checking of balances and doing nothing, I cut myself off from the internet. What I was not prepared for, however, was how often I referenced it. Any question that pops into my mind I search for on Google. And this, not the emailing, researching and facebooking, is why my internet cut off time didn’t actually occur until eleven. Questions from, how long has Ben Stiller been married (nine years), how do you make bread bowls for soup (I didn’t find a recipe easy enough) and what, exactly is that spot on my toe (I don’t know) kept me coming back to the computer. I had not realized how often I use the internet to answer my questions. So long are the days of pondering, why when there is Wikipedia? When I finally stopped meandering to the computer to ask it questions, and sat down to type up a response for English, I unconsciously clicked open the internet. That, if nothing else, shows how often I use it.
Once the initial break was made, the rest of my day carried on without disruption or even the need for the internet. I did not feel it inhibited my ability to communicate (after all I still had my cell phone) nor did it ruin my day. I had plenty of other things to do; I didn’t need to look up all the movies Elizabeth Taylor has been in, I was busy enough. After reading the first chapters of Online Communication and Technopoly, I began to think about my internet usage, how it affects my personality and ways of communicating. The affect of computer mediated communication on my personality was easy to see; mediated communication makes me wittier. Because I am communicating through a third party, in this case a blog, I am able to think through, revise, look up words in the thesaurus and reference Postman and Wood and Smith. This communication would drastically change if I were talking directly to someone and not through technology. If I were talking directly to someone, I would not have to time to think through witty and intelligent answers, I would have to respond immediately and rely on my thoughts for information. In the academic world especially, mediated communication is used for relaying what information students have learned, and how they have applied it. Think of how different learning would be if we gave memorized speeches, as Postman describes the ancient Greeks doing, instead of writing papers. Think of all the material we would have mastered. This brings up the question then; does technology make us any smarter? Individually, I think it has not. As a society, it has propelled us to know things we would have never figured out without the aid of computers. The properties of electrons, for instance, would not be known if the subject was not researched thoroughly with the help of technology.
A day without the internet, therefore, was a good experience. Although I never learned how many movies Elizabeth Taylor has been in, I did learn how the internet impacts the way I communicate and how this, in turn, affects not only how I communicate with people, but how I learn. If there was no internet, I would talk to my doctor about the spot on toe, I would look up recipes for bread bowls in a cook book, and I would probably not care about Ben Stiller’s wife. Without the internet, we would revert back to a more personal form of communication: talking. We would spend our time writing thought out letters, reading and interacting with one another face to face. We would have not lost the art of debate or conversation. But would we be happier? Are we happier now?