The world is changing. It is getting smaller, faster, smarter and more accessible. What’s crazy is that some people are bitching that all this technology and change is a bad thing. “Nobody reads anymore” i heard someone say the other day. I do believe that habits are changing due to technology. Mobile phones make it easier to tune out conversations and to not memorize phone numbers. The internet rewards and feeds a short attention span. The question i ask myself is “is this a bad thing?” Chuck Klosterman in his latest book has a whole chapter dedicated to explaining why technology is a bad thing (my thoughts). By i believe he’s equating different to harmful. I recently read this blog post by Steven Johnson where he states:
I think of our present situation as somewhat analogous to the mass migration from the country to the city that started several centuries ago in Europe: the bustle and stimulation and diversity of urban life made it harder to enjoy the slower, organic pleasures of rural living. Still those pleasures didn’t disappear. People continue to cherish them in mass numbers to this day.
I believe this wholeheartedly. Urban life totally disrupted the traditional calm of country life. Today there are plenty who prefer the hustle of the city and many others who prefer to keep it calm in the country. I fully appreciate both. However, i have no patience for people who bash city life (ask my sister about how i attacked her when she started ripping NYC). Large city culture is unique and can be exhilarating, stimulating and inspiring. But it’s existence doesn’t preclude living in the country – just like the internet and technology doesn’t have to render reading and concentrating in large doses obsolete. Don’t fear the change, just recognize it for what it is: another option for your attention.
Oh, I am still so pissed about that NYC fight, specifically your (seeming inability) to accept that one person doesn't like what you do. Arguments against NYC living for me include things like “it's harder to live the lifestyle I want in that city” not “Damn, living in a city totally sucks.” Of course, in the context or two siblings fighting in front of their parents, I'm sure it came out more like “Whatever, and you're ugly!” (I love family arguments)
Ahem.
That being said, I get annoyed when people (cough Matt cough) get uppity about social media or technology. It's not lame, or lowbrow, or a time waster. It's a different way of connecting and interacting with the world around us. Maybe if they (he) phrased it in more of “that's just not how I want to live” (like me in NYC), putting the issue where it belongs (on him/us), rather than on the technology (city), it would carry more weight
Or, whatever, and you're ugly.
Having formerly opposed participation in such inane activities as facebook and twitter, I have shouldered up to sip the nectar from the Jonestown troth. That notwithstanding my issues with the two have been confirmed through experiencing the phenomena first hand. I add to your Urban vs Country, New media vs Old discussion another analogy. Using the “another option for attention” argument presented in your posting:
“But it’s existence doesn’t preclude living in the country – just like the internet and technology doesn’t have to render reading and concentrating in large doses obsolete. Don’t fear the change, just recognize it for what it is: another option for your attention”
I’d like to present that New media is akin to the crying baby in a room. (particularly if it is your own). With many options and demands for your attention present, your attention is drawn to the most demanding first. (The squeaky wheel theory). With so much of our bandwidth being dedicated to the most needy and consuming “option” we often neglect other options of equal or greater importance. The third tier options then get pushed even further down the list into a category of leisure and recreation, which as we all know is a withering enterprise. With the vast menu of options clamoring for our attention it is safe to say that the leisures of yore are seated next to newsprint and brick and mortar stores on their way to extinctionville. As related to your post, I’m not taking a stance on whether this is good or bad. I’m simply saying that to some degree, one does in fact preclude the participation in the other.
Having formerly opposed participation in such inane activities as facebook and twitter, I have shouldered up to sip the nectar from the Jonestown troth. That notwithstanding my issues with the two have been confirmed through experiencing the phenomena first hand. I add to your Urban vs Country, New media vs Old discussion another analogy. Using the “another option for attention” argument presented in your posting:
“But it’s existence doesn’t preclude living in the country – just like the internet and technology doesn’t have to render reading and concentrating in large doses obsolete. Don’t fear the change, just recognize it for what it is: another option for your attention”
I’d like to present that New media is akin to the crying baby in a room. (particularly if it is your own). With many options and demands for your attention present, your attention is drawn to the most demanding first. (The squeaky wheel theory). With so much of our bandwidth being dedicated to the most needy and consuming “option” we often neglect other options of equal or greater importance. The third tier options then get pushed even further down the list into a category of leisure and recreation, which as we all know is a withering enterprise. With the vast menu of options clamoring for our attention it is safe to say that the leisures of yore are seated next to newsprint and brick and mortar stores on their way to extinctionville. As related to your post, I’m not taking a stance on whether this is good or bad. I’m simply saying that to some degree, one does in fact preclude the participation in the other.
Having formerly opposed participation in such inane activities as facebook and twitter, I have shouldered up to sip the nectar from the Jonestown troth. That notwithstanding my issues with the two have been confirmed through experiencing the phenomena first hand. I add to your Urban vs Country, New media vs Old discussion another analogy. Using the “another option for attention” argument presented in your posting:
“But it’s existence doesn’t preclude living in the country – just like the internet and technology doesn’t have to render reading and concentrating in large doses obsolete. Don’t fear the change, just recognize it for what it is: another option for your attention”
I’d like to present that New media is akin to the crying baby in a room. (particularly if it is your own). With many options and demands for your attention present, your attention is drawn to the most demanding first. (The squeaky wheel theory). With so much of our bandwidth being dedicated to the most needy and consuming “option” we often neglect other options of equal or greater importance. The third tier options then get pushed even further down the list into a category of leisure and recreation, which as we all know is a withering enterprise. With the vast menu of options clamoring for our attention it is safe to say that the leisures of yore are seated next to newsprint and brick and mortar stores on their way to extinctionville. As related to your post, I’m not taking a stance on whether this is good or bad. I’m simply saying that to some degree, one does in fact preclude the participation in the other.
Having formerly opposed participation in such inane activities as facebook and twitter, I have shouldered up to sip the nectar from the Jonestown troth. That notwithstanding my issues with the two have been confirmed through experiencing the phenomena first hand. I add to your Urban vs Country, New media vs Old discussion another analogy. Using the “another option for attention” argument presented in your posting:
“But it’s existence doesn’t preclude living in the country – just like the internet and technology doesn’t have to render reading and concentrating in large doses obsolete. Don’t fear the change, just recognize it for what it is: another option for your attention”
I’d like to present that New media is akin to the crying baby in a room. (particularly if it is your own). With many options and demands for your attention present, your attention is drawn to the most demanding first. (The squeaky wheel theory). With so much of our bandwidth being dedicated to the most needy and consuming “option” we often neglect other options of equal or greater importance. The third tier options then get pushed even further down the list into a category of leisure and recreation, which as we all know is a withering enterprise. With the vast menu of options clamoring for our attention it is safe to say that the leisures of yore are seated next to newsprint and brick and mortar stores on their way to extinctionville. As related to your post, I’m not taking a stance on whether this is good or bad. I’m simply saying that to some degree, one does in fact preclude the participation in the other.
Hey Mike,
I was waiting in the lobby getting the oil changed in my moms car over the holidays and read this article in analog format. Made me think about this post and some themes you touch on.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09…
W/r/t the idea of technology causing change and is it a bad thing? Maybe so or maybe not (“Baron acknowledges that we don't know what the long-term social and cognitive impact of the computer revolution will be”). It is inevitable, though, and will be a part of our lives so you might as well keep an open mind and be ready to adapt.