Another Crockpot Theory

At the core of our society, there is a profound desire for stability. No matter what the past was or what the future beholds, we want to be informed ahead of time and we want total control. To demonstrate, look at the way the assembly line epitomizes precision in mass production or how George Ritzer’s “McDonaldization” describes the very fabric of Corporate America with it’s efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. But has it always been this way? Let’s revisit history. In ancient Athenian/Greek society, Socrates was put on trial and condemned to death for suspicion of teaching oligarchs how to be ruthless tyrants and defying democracy when in reality, he was merely interpreting definitions of Good and Justice with his Socratic method (deducing any concept to a series of questions). In 1517, Martin Luther posted the 95 theses on the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany to oppose indulgences, the Bible not being in the vernacular, and the excessive veneration of saints but instead the Roman Catholic Church deemed him a heretic and forced him to flee to Germany. Even recently, after the September 11^th terrorist attack on the World Trade Centers, President George W. Bush declared a war on terrorism directed at the “axes of evil” and infiltrated Iraq, bringing violent scapegoating back into the cycle of history, this time in the 21^st century. Whether the answer is death or excommunication, we’ve always found a way to rule out instability. This fear characterizes the mentality a few people have towards post-humanism and transhumanism. The disembodiment of human characteristics, integration of robotics or technology directly in the body, and the potential to be superseded by a new race of mixed or pure robots all leads to a loss of control, literally. Despite the fact that some proponents for transhumanism have solid (although lofty) predictions of our future supported by statistical patterns or mathematical theories, such authors like Ronald Bailey and Ray Kurzweil are depicted as power-hungry, destructive knowledge-crazy lunatics because their theories pose a difficult concept for us to digest: instability.

That bothers me. Every history lesson and every cliche book I’ve ever read teaches me to dream the impossible, reach for the stars, or stand in the face of adversity, even if you are standing alone. All these cheesy quotes that I’ve been fed by countless of teachers suddenly doesn’t apply to the unpredictable future. Why is transhumanism a different development than romanticism during the time of neoclassicism? The enlightenment during the time of ruthless monarchies? I see transhumanism as yet another philosophy. Don’t get me wrong, of course the religious tone of a few scientists make transhumanism laughable, the daunting possibility of mass destruction makes it terrifying, and the overwhelming potential for Godly powers makes it a little arrogant BUT, why not? It’s an ambitious approach to endless knowledge, a daringly creative take on 21^st century epistemology. Transhumanism stems from, in my opinion, a desire to break from this long period of stagnancy and bring about real change that has profound impacts on daily human life as we know it. Science fiction may be a little difficult to envision in reality today, but the possibility of it in the future is very real. In hindsight, every critical invention made could be considered “science fiction” from that moment in the past. For example, who’d have thought that robots could simulate body functions and replace animal testing well enough that consumers feel secure enough to purchase potentially toxic products? In fact, the Humane Society International is currently campaigning for advancing safety science and health research with innovative non-animal tools. There’s data to supplement arguments for transhumanism and a lot of capability. Isn’t there hypocrisy in restricting a science fiction reality based upon science fiction fears? Neither could happen, or both could happen. If you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take, it’s worth a shot.

A revaluation of human nature rises for the opponents to transhumanism. Author Fukuyama believes that “the first victim of transhumanism might be equality... Underlying this idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin color, beauty, and even intelligence... that individuals therefore have inherent value.” With transhumanism, technological advancement means a new super species that modifies this inherent value and creates an imbalance in the long developed definition of equality and according to Darwin’s theory of evolution, the better species wins in the survival of the fittest and outlives the less-advantageous previous species by reproduction. In regards to post-humanism, author N. Katherine Hayles redefines intelligence as “a property of the formal manipulation of symbols rather than enaction in the human lifeworld.” Disembodied, intelligence now begs the connection between an enacted body and a represented body. Although more specific to the Turing Test and Alan Turing’s life with an interpretation from Andrew Hodges,  the aspect of “identity production” is a scary reality where we could lose what is the essence human nature (gender, nationality, personality) entirely.

Pulling criticism from the vast abyss of horrendous possible conclusions is easy compared to formulating foundations for theories to be plausible. Author Ronald Bailey directly refutes Fukuyama’s claim of transhumanism as a means of merely liberating the human race from its biological constraints by sarcastically asking, “isn’t human history (and prehistory) all about liberating more and more people from their biological constraints?” Instead, he notes biologist Richard Dawkins who calls transhumanism an “extended phenotype” where altering the body with nanotechnology is nothing different than exercising to build muscle and replicating emotions is synonymous to using mood altering drugs. On the equality issue, Bailey seems to think that the new innovations will be a top-down benefit, that the more technological help is created, the more lives will gain an advantage whereas Fukuyama seems to think of these inventions as a top-getting-higher benefit, where only a select, exclusive few will have access. For instance, children born without deficiencies aren’t going to use these inventions to get better or prettier, it’ll be the parents of the children born with disorders that will choose to make their kids “equal” (as Fukuyama would claim) in society. Most importantly, Bailey notes that “the principle of tolerance [is] putting up with people who look differently, talk differently, worship different, and live differently than we do. In the future, our descendants may not all be natural homo sapiens, but they will still be moral beings who can be held accountable for their actions... In any case, political equality has never rested on the facts of human biology.” This raises an interesting point: human nature, contradicting the theory that robots and perfectly engineered beings will create inequality, is actually their own source of imbalance in society.

To take this a step further, some suggested benefits of transhumanism can be a social utopia. That, with enhanced cyborg or robotic beings, racial, societal, and prejudice issues may disappear. This utopia might most likely be achieved with inventor/author Ray Kurzweil’s essay, “The Six Epochs.” His rhetoric focuses in on reduction of all data, historical and statistical, into information the audience can interpret with a sub-focus in conjunction with this reduction: the law of accelerating returns. The reason his epochs have developed is because life advances based on a set of recognizable patterns that become spontaneously discovered, perfected, and then enhanced to allow for the next epoch to come to life. Unfortunately, we’ve always been advancing and evolving based on biological constraints. The next step for our society is to reach epoch 5, which “will result from the merger of the vast knowledge in our own brains with the vastly greater capacity, speed, and knowledge-sharing ability of our technology.” Since his law of accelerating returns states that “the rate of evolution and technological advancements increase exponentially,” it makes sense that the merge between human capability and machine capability will be able to surpass all human limitations and discover/invent at a rapid pace into unknown places. Does it sound like utopia yet? The goal for Singularity is similar to the Matrix Grid, in my opinion. It’s a source of vast knowledge that’s continuously trying to perfect life (beings, environment, and products), expand, and share all it’s data. If people were part machine-part human, then racism disappears. If everyone knew everything at the same time with access to whatever they needed, whenever they needed it, there would be no injustice (or government), economic imbalance (or capitalism), and no warfare (or nationalities). Here’s the kick: Kurzweil wants to spread out from Earth and universalize the Universe. Now, he approaches crockpot status, but before, his calculations aren’t that wrong. 

He deduced all his graphs to y=1/x, the inverse of the logarithm that displayed historical records (although biased in his selections). By continually striving for more knowledge, man is able to predict that his limits are boundless, that as the limit (of man, lets say) as x approaches 0 is infinity. However, if we were to relinquish biological constraints, integrate machines into our lives (literally), and merge the two components of intellect, then we may actually discover infinity and set boundaries to it. The merge, therefore, would have to be a point of discontinuity in an integral that has a positive slope since we are accumulating information continuously and exponentially. That means, there must be a upward cusp, making the acceleration (y” or the second derivative) discontinuous at this point. Mathematically speaking, Kurzweil figured it out and despite the fact that some very human characteristics have been deduced to a point on a grid (for example, he’s implying that emotions or thoughts can potentially be a binary numerical system), the theory all makes amazing sense.

In 2006, I could only dream of a sleek, tablet-like phone that can hold both music, videos, pictures. I could only dream of apps and 64 GB of memory. I could only dream of touch screens, face-to-face video calling, and 4G network internationally. Yet, by 2010, I had mastered the iPhone 4 and synced it to... well, my life. Now, most people can’t even handle personal scheduling conflicts or navigating to different locations without a smart phone. These authors aren’t unreasonable. Although I understand why Fukuyama might be terrified and why Hayles’ new interpretation may redefine the essence of individuality, I go giddy with pleasure with the excitement of the future. To know that suicide may be averted truly consolidates me. It gives me hope that maybe someone else in the future can save a friend while I couldn’t. Even better, maybe if my cousin was born in the future, he could be cured of autism. Selfishly, I wouldn’t mind being the first human body in outer space, either. Realistically, Kurzweil even has a disclaimer: “But the Singularity will also amplify the ability to act on our destructive inclinations, so its full story has not yet been written.” There are only a few things author Bill Joy said that resonated within me. First, it’s his addressing Murphy’s Law-- “Anything that can go wrong, will.” The human potential to be ridiculously violent and destructive is not a far possibility either and stands in the foreground of my worries. Second, when his friend Danny answered, “changes would come gradually, and that we would get used to them,” I looked around and realized how complacent I am with my life integrated into technology, my Macbook Pro, iPhone, and iPad synced up by iCloud when just three years ago, I still had a bulky PC. The change was painless. And third, Joy presents an alternative of “relinquishment: to limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of knowledge.” An emergency brake system might do us some good so that we can reap the benefits while avoiding the lingering dooms of atomic mushroom clouds or a nano-bot takeovers. However, we return to my main argument of instability. Bill Joy leaves his readers with one last thought: “Part of the answer certainly lies in our attitude toward the new- in our bias toward instant familiarity and unquestioning acceptance.” It’s the daunting idea of losing control of our body, mind, then society, and even radically, our universe that turns a few audience members off. I refuse to believe my past twelve years of basic education has been built on a foundation of lies. I’d love to “shoot for the moon so that even if I fail, I land among the stars.” While transhumanism is a crockpot theory to you, it’s a philosophy to me full of life, creativity, and human cooperation that will never be undermined. Let’s not excommunicate or sentence to death a 21^st century school of thought that could finally revolutionize everything that we know... with us as the innovators. 

맥다노르드

August 28^th, 2010

My dearest younger sister,
    Here's a little acronym reflecting upon my last trip to Korea and the most valuable lesson I ever learned: cultural identity.

I. I am Sang Eun Lee, born in South Korea but raised in the United States of America. I am eighteen-years-old and a freshman at New York University. I am a Korean American. I am an older sister and first-born daughter. Identity is a timeless habit everybody has. Interaction itself requires both parties to characterize themselves with various labels so that a relationship can form or be avoided depending on commonalities and disagreements. In a global culture, identity becomes increasingly difficult, especially since boundaries blur between characteristics. If one can be both Korean and American, what are you? In our society, the most influential culture is the United States of America. Intellectuals argue that distinctive traditions disappear or transform according to a dominating culture’s influence, which further diminishes identity. Imperialistic cultures that overpower smaller, native populations constitutes homogenization. In fact, one of the most effective ways homogenization occurs is through the economy, making a smaller population dependent on global products and international production or distribution. Indigenous cultures find their traditions uneconomical, causing them to abandon their rich cultures and prefer generic ones. In opposition to that theory, other intellectuals believe cultures benefit from global exposure. Increasing with globalization, cultural choices explode into the market that indigenous peoples can benefit from since people are not passive vessels and naturally able to uphold or denounce global influences. Inevitably, culture is in a constant dialogue, constantly changing in a vicious cycle of “people make culture, culture makes people,” (Yi Wang). In my opinion, the 21^st century global culture does not take away from my identity because my identity was never geographically located anyways and I express it how I want to express myself. I am an individual.

D. Date: June 28^th, 2010. Daddy thinks going to Korea would be a great experience for me to better know my heritage and catch up on “lost times” with my grandparents. “Definitely,” I replied, and the next thing I knew, I was on a fourteen hour flight to Incheon International Airport. Differences in landscape was the first thing I noticed: mountain ranges, ocean sides, and strange looking trees. During the three hour trip back into Seoul (it was supposed to be one, but the traffic was unbelievable), my heart fluttered at the thought of being immersed in a completely traditional environment for the next three months. Determined to return with customs I don’t normally practice back home, I welled with anticipation. Distinctively, I stood out like a sore thumb out in the countryside, but as soon as we entered the heart of Seoul (where my grandparents lived), I noticed something really interesting. Down the block from my grandparents’ apartment was probably one of the McDonald’s I have ever seen. Dumbfounded, I decided to explore further into town as soon as I was done unpacking.

E. Elle, Domino’s, Coldstone, Baskin Robins’ were all there and with further research, I learned that so many American companies are present in Korea that a U.S.-Korea Trade Agreement (KORUS Agreement) is in debate right now because it would open Korea’s $560 billion services market to highly competitive American companies, supporting jobs for American workers in sectors ranging from delivery and telecommunications services to education and health care services. Expectedly, disappointment plagued me in my gut, honestly, because I felt a little invaded and insulted at the incredibly-visible essence of American culture. Expectations must’ve been higher than I expected, ironically enough. Even though I thought Korea would be foreign, that I was more American than Korean, my experience showed me otherwise. Evidently, Korea is almost just as American as I am. Everywhere I turn, I feel right as home with access to my favorite fast food restaurants, brand names, and even an entire town was dedicated to replicating an American town.

N. Nevertheless, my lessons were priceless. Ninety days later, I returned home and realized how sorely wrong I was in my interpretation. Negatively, I assumed America would stay in America and Korea would be available for me only in Korea but in reality, I control that. Normally, I strictly follow Korean traditions, for instance, as I entered O’Hare International Airport, the first thing I did was bow to my parents and say, “anyounghasaeyo” like the traditional, formal, respectable korean girl I was raised to be. Next, as I entered my home, I took off my shoes and realized that I haven’t said a single word in English; I spoke entirely in Korean. Nostalgically reminiscing about my trip to Korea today is completely different than the I image I constructed for my mother over the phone during my trip. Now that time has passed, I realize I chose to express myself as an American there, that’s why everything was so familiar. Never will I ever let a geographic destination define what I call identity, although I do acknowledge its influence and importance, ever again.

T. To express myself as a Korean would’ve meant that I had to get accustomed to the school, the daily life, and the history there, which I didn’t. Technically, I am still korean. The definition of cultural identity various from person to person but author Ilze Bezuidenhout defines cultural identity as, “an image referring to external as well as internal characteristics of a specific group. However, a culture must be located in time and space to "anchor" it in terms of its past, future and place and to indicate or compare changes that took place within that culture.” The majority of the definition, I agree with. Today, I choose to adhere to the way my parents raised me: the good ol’ fashioned way. Traditionally, I bow when I greet adults, I speak in a formally conjugated language, I eat with chopsticks whenever possible, and I do exceptionally well in science or math-based courses (just kidding about the last attribute). To be an American, I support and love the privilege of the education system here, I call Carol Stream, Illinois my only home, I speak English perfectly, and I am proud to be a citizen. To me, identity changes with time, my time. These fears about globalization seem to be just about extreme nationalism and a rejection towards a new era, exactly emphasizing the Jihad vs. McWorld concept author Barber had. 

I. I am me. Interestingly enough, that’s all that matters to me now. Insecurities no longer plague me with existential problems such as who I am, what I stand for, and how I’ll be an individual. It’s all the same. Identity is enhanced by this global culture because the increased choices in the global market allow individuals to be more cultural, to understand one another, and to practice being a cosmopolitan. In fact, author Appiah was right, it is the age of modern cosmopolitanism. It’s up to us to recognize that globalization has always been a integral aspect of civilization; originality is dead. In hindsight, I wouldn’t trade my trip to Korea for the world because it did enhance my korean culture while better fortifying the American in me.

T. Therefore, cultural identity is a choice, a relative definition for the contemporary cosmopolitan.

Y. You should also find your own cultural identity, hopefully with the same rewarding experience as I had.

Your Newly Enlightened Sister,

Sue.

Dear Diary,

    Let’s envision my typical day in high school focusing on the classroom setting. I sit down two minutes before the passing period ends, notebook on the desk turned to a fresh page. RING. Class starts and I’m off. “A major theme in biology is ‘form fits function.’ The mosaic nature of the plasma membrane is filled with carbohydrates, liquids, ATP...” Crap, what was the last thing he said? Do the hydrophilic chains face inside or outside the outer membrane? Suddenly, I find myself snowballing down a hill of confusion. Whatever, I’ll just re-annotate the textbook later. After losing pace with my teacher’s lecture, I focus instead on the powerpoint, which contains bolded, defined vocabulary words and diagrams that vaguely represent what detailed explanation my teacher is trying to give. Usually by the time I’ve succumbed to last-resort note-taking, my notes become so sparse and easy to memorize that my work feels accomplished even though I probably didn’t understand the entirety of the subject. Then, I just let my mind wander until I hear the next passing period’s bell. 
    My college career at New York University officially started. First thing I noticed: connectivity. Everyone is linked to each other through the World Wide Web, constantly sharing files or messages with NYUClasses or NYUGmail. Also, I was typing my notes, not frantically scribbling them. With laptops in the room, class discussions sped up and included a variety of discussion rather than just the teacher’s cliche lesson. Last but not least, teaching and learning happens in both the teacher and the student in my NYU courses. In fact, my professor and I tweet, tweeting posts about anything from politics to blogging. Learning encompasses much more than pure memorization. Even with a lecture, merely explaining the material is not enough in some cases for students to absorb and get familiarized with the subject. Ironically, all those years in high school getting my cellphone or iPad taken away now seems detrimental more than beneficial at keeping me focused. The reality is we are living in the 21^st century and learning in a digital age. Therefore, despite my still being a student, I’ve compiled my past diary entries, comparing and contrasting my college academic experience with my high school academic experience, to reflect upon why the integration of technology to a certain degree is most beneficial.

September 8^th, 2012:
    I just finished my first week of school. In all honesty, I have whiplash trying to keep up with my courses. Some of them don’t feel much different from high school, aside from a smaller class size. We read a novel, come to class to discuss it, and then write an essay dissecting motifs of the reading. Actually, they're like high school on steroids with nearly 200 pages to read per night and a powerpoint presentation due for each of those readings. Yet, another class exists that's refreshingly new: Wri_108. The first thing Dr. Rectenwald said was, "All writing, reading, and conversing will essentially take place online. Our only assignment? Make a Twitter account." Pretty unorthodox, this class holds a lot of potential to challenge me, especially since I’m always terribly unsatisfied with my own writing. Our whole class will be constantly connected, splashing colorful additions to our discussion whenever, however.

September 15^th, 2012:
    In Latin American Global Cultures (LAGC), the syllabus pans out exactly what I will be learning about: The Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs. No news there, I’m simply repeating what I learned in social studies. In Cultural Foundations (CF), the feminists in my class have taken over and by taken over, I mean they dominate conversations and devour all opposition. We read about the double standard of women’s role in society and how a tiny Venus statue (the Woman of Willendorf) can be pornography. Two class periods have been wasted merely sharing everyone's relatively similar (and mundane, for that matter) opinions because we only had one source as background information. I give up. Social Foundations (SF) teaches ancient egyptian culture and ancient authors demonstrating bias. Love the subject material, hate the note-taking on a reiteration of the homework and by hand. In Writing, however, I learned about media convergence and its effects. Our conversations even went as far as discussing a sort of masochistic consumerism that exists in our society with the help of my iPad, which gave me all statistics I used to argue my position. Surprisingly, I was more engaged because multiples of sources or professional accounts meant a thousand different means of interpretation. We stopped wasting time on establishing understanding or definitions and started constructing our own understanding with material from contemporary times and real world issues. In fact, many research studies both in education and in psychology support the theory that students learn by constructing their own knowledge, not by passive absorption of information (Resnick, 1987, von Glaserfeld, 1987). I guess Google isn't making us stupid. Getting rapid facts online, although I do agree facts mean nothing without foundational understanding of the overarching concept, are definitely helpful. Technology allows facts to be known faster and to be more readily available than the exact same facts found the archaic way: books. As long as we're not "passively absorbing" information, learning is learning. My iPad just makes things incredibly efficient.

September 22^nd, 2012:
    I can’t stop thinking about it. It’s so interesting to see how something so insignificant as video games, originally meant for entertainment, manifest into something so necessary economically, psychologically, and physically. I mean, our industry is blooming because of games like Call of Duty and South Korea wants to make video gaming a sport for Pete’s sake. Further yet, a psychoanalysis of dreams show that they serve as a source of escapism for many individuals, a subconscious desire for control and competition to excel past boundaries of life that don’t exist in these pixelated contexts. All the while we discussed harmful effects, the internet didn’t stop us from seeing the benefits. Information poured out about accelerated ability to weed out unnecessary information or proper emotional ventilation. I saw it help Freddy first hand in gym class. The coordination and motor skills that come from Wii is incredible. That’s when I got inspired to write. For the first time ever, I could creatively, almost instinctively, start extracting my thoughts. My ideas spewed out and for a notoriously opinionated child like me, expression is the hardest. Surprisingly, my writing grows less and less formulated. The blogs give me a sense of individuality as well as structure, yet it’s still a homework assignment. Last week it was greek mythology and this week it’s a narrative. So far in all of my other classes, I’ve had hellish reading assignments and no grades to show for them. Discussions are fair in my other classes but we spend a lot of time recapping and clarifying passages more than digging deep into thematics of the chapters. Interesting read, but not I'm not too interested.

September 29^th, 2012:
    Pedagogy is everywhere. The discussions we’ve had so far in class have left me a skeptic, a critic, and worst of all, a fatalist according to Dr. Rectenwald. Teachers attempt to be liberal but don’t incorporate technology for fear of destroying the “intimate” discussions that are not occurring. With access to the internet and freedom to use information however I want, I’ve finally touched upon the concept of knowledge. See, that’s the thing. The reason I feel so compelled to speak up in class and really voice myself in my blogs is because I feel like I can become knowledgeable if I can use the information I have gathered in class. I have the experience and outlook to understand the information, I have the passion and interest to use it. I just need to figure out exactly how I would want to integrate and redisplay my perspective better. My flaws are obnoxiously evident in my writing and even more so in class, but improvement has never been more quick. In high school, I couldn’t even dream of knowing my flaws four weeks into school. Even if I had, my teachers tried to correct them for me but here I am, finally being a big girl and figuring it all out alone. Dr. Rectenwald likes to learn with us, discussing possibilities and interpretations, while teaching us certain ideas of the world that have been proposed but may be a little too advanced for common knowledge. I feel I had been following the "banking system." Educational theorist Paolo Freire argued, in his pioneering work Pedagogy of the Oppressed, that educators should reject this "banking" model, in which the teacher 'owns' knowledge and 'deposits' it in students. Instead, he promoted a 'problem-posing' method in which teachers and students learn together, through dialogue. Problem-posing education depends, then, on a dialogical theory of praxis and knowledge and revised relationship between teacher and student. In WRI108, however, a reformation is occurring. Dr.Rec doesn't encourage "container students" and allows dialogue to flow freely in his class. Technology is a lot more beneficial than I’d anticipated, I just wish I could use my iPad in some of my other classes. I’d take notes much faster and bring many more references to these amazing literatures we are studying. It'd help use class time way more advantageously.

October 6^th, 2012:
    I’ve never been exposed to so much material, had so much freedom, and still felt so concrete. The moment I am directed to write an essay, my heart ambitiously decides a meaningful topic and my head conjures up all the evidence I may need to start. I just wrote an eight-paged essay for my Social Foundations teacher on a comparison between Moses and Pericles: who’s the better leader? The rhetoric flowed, the anxiety disappeared. While I still referenced the text, I rocketed through pages in the internet to gather evidence that better focused my textual citations as well. The Renaissance man of the 21^st century must be this kind of a man, a man who can be literate and tech-savvy (or woman). Technology doesn’t have to be some estranged form of cocaine for the psychologically or emotionally needy. Multitasking is not a disease. Classrooms don’t have to be political catastrophes wavering back and forth between anarchy and totalitarianism. Technology has saved time and memory for me. Learning in a digital age improved skills I’ve struggled with, improvements that would not have occurred with the Stone Age’s paper, pencil, and grading rubric. God forbid I use the five-paragraph stencil in college with five to seven sentences in each paragraph... I think those types of restrictions serve no purpose except to restrict. My poor teacher. 

    Learning in a digital age means freedom. Yes, a chaotic, unpredictable, uncoordinated kind of freedom. Conservatists' argument that technology in the classrooms can be distracting, is true. Also, the exponentially increasing technological innovations causing difficulties in equal distribution or already-set curriculums due to terribly slow technological infrastructure is true. Regardless, I’ve learned that it’s my goal to know how to take what I need, understand what I want, and mold what I have envisioned to create my own masterpiece. Technology is the necessary medium, an inhuman connection to humanity that provides information as well as knowledge from all over. Saving time doesn’t imply kids are getting distracted multitasking or getting lazy. nsba.org actually quoted, "Of the hundreds of studies that show positive benefits from the use of technology, two are worth noting for their comprehensiveness. The first, a U.S. Department of Education-funded study of nine technology-rich schools, concluded that the use of technology resulted in educational gains for all students regardless of age, race, parental income, or other characteristics. [GET THIS] The second, a 10-year study supported by Apple Computer, Inc., concluded that student provided with technology-rich learning environments ‘continued to perform well on standardized tests but were also developing a variety of competencies not usually measured. Students explored and represented information dynamically and in many forms; became socially aware and more confident; communicated effectively about complex processes; became independent learners and self-starters; knew their areas of expertise and shared that expertise spontaneously,’" (ACOT). It’s a matter of perspective, a perspective more people would have if they at least try using technology, in the classroom or at work. After reviewing the progression of my journal entries, I conclude that I’ve learned a lot. I’ve grown because of this digital age and there’s no aspect of my education that could potentially survive without it, regardless of whether it’s in class or not. 

Yours Truly,

Susan (Sang Eun) Lee
Sunday, October 7th, 2012

Out of the Box

“Who let the dogs out, WHO WHO WHO WHO?!” Screeched a stout, bubbly little fellow whilst cupping his hands around his ear, barking and dancing in front of the T.V. This is Freddy and we are currently in first period gym class, his favorite time of the day. His favorite game? Just Dance with his special Wii controller customized with a blue, clear cover and a batman strap. It’s a big deal. “Come on Susan! Shake with me, we’re dogs!”

“No Freddy,” I laughed uncontrollably, “just be careful not to lose your remote!” Freddy has been my friend for three years. I met him when I was a sophomore and he a freshman. My job is to mentor him, slowly helping to develop his motor and social skills in a learning atmosphere. One might assume Freddy would learn a lot from me since I am perfectly healthy and capable. Unfortunately, I have nothing more to offer him than my company. Instead, Freddy taught me so many more valuable lessons ranging from autism to comic books and everything in between. 

We always leave fifteen minutes at the end of class for free time, when all the students in Special Education Gym can gather and play any game they desire. During every free time, Freddy quietly slips past the crowd and grabs the Wii remotes to start playing video games. As the rest of the group plays huge rounds of kickball or parachutes, Freddy stands isolated in front of the TV terribly excited to go through the list of new Wii dances or sports, so much so that he has the list of dances on Just Dance memorized. Freddy can now pop and lock, dip and slide. He loves to twirl and shake his hips from side to side, mouthing to Shakira’s song and clapping his hands to the beat. It’s borderline amazing. Just Dance has allowed Freddy to feel so comfortable using his own hands and feet when just three years ago, he couldn’t even walk a mile without tripping over his own feet. Wii sports made hand-eye-coordination so natural that the skills he acquired transferred directly to reality. He bowls without bumpers now. The first day he stopped using bumpers still resonates within me, a genuinely proud moment of my career in Special Education gym. Helen R. Pilcher writes in Nature Magazine that, “gamers  react to fast moving objects more efficiently and can track up to five objects at a time-- 30% more than non-players.” The improvements are profound and life-altering for Freddy.

However, there is such a thing as “too much of a good thing.” According to an article posted by Mark Brandenburg, “in a study done with 1,178 children in the US, almost 9 percent of child gamers are pathologically or clinically “addicted” to playing video games.” Not only did Freddy memorize the entire list of songs in order in his Just Dance game, but he also memorized the different tracks in his racing game and the different “star locations” of his Mario Party 3 game. How much time does he spend playing these games? Too much. So much that he memorizes games first, basic reading skills second. Actually, in a pool of statistics founded by Gregory Linton, the average teenage boy does spend more than 13 hours a week playing video games. Out of the approximate 270 days of school, every free time Freddy gets, Freddy insists on playing his games. In addition, even when the TV is off, he’s still cupping his hands, barking and dancing around the gymnasium screaming “who let the dogs out, who!” I remember back in middle school, I also spent an incredible 5 hours a night playing Maplestory, chomping into my sleeping time just so I can level once or twice more. 

Why do we find this much pleasure in video games? Ironically, given the complexity of the more recent games, you’d assume them to lose popularity but au contraire. Games are actually mentally and chemically more pleasing the more complex they get. We see more and more of games with infinite quests and endless story lines, such as Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs), and less of games like Super Mario where you save the princess and quickly beat the game. Humans seem to have a psychological need to succeed; therefore, an infinite number of possibilities to accomplish a high score means infinite number of hours dedicated to achieving it. It builds relationships for the socially awkward without the burdens of actually maintaining them in reality, which allows them to completely avoid the terribly uncomfortable break ups or confrontations. They may not be embodied but that suffices for someone who feels utterly alone otherwise, much rather preferring to be virtual. Another interesting discovery of video games is their effects on dopamine levels in the players’ brain. A study done by researchers at Hammersmith Hospital in 2005 found that dopamine, the mood-regulating hormone associated with feelings of pleasure, doubled while subjects were playing video games. Further investigation could potentially lead to a huge breakthrough in video game addiction and the mental affects of gaming. 

In the end, all these speculations boil down to one conclusion: Freddy. I can see it in his eyes. Freddy is the perfect representation of escapism. All these mental and physical handicaps attributed to autism don’t exist when he’s just a character in a video game. He can dance and move however he wants to, as long as the Wii controller synchronizes with the sensor. Gaming brings friends his way, virtually and in reality. Seriously, how can you resist a bubbly little boy dancing like a little puppy to the “who let the dogs out” song? Video games are a vice and a virtue. They temporarily make dreams a reality, especially for people like Freddy, allowing them to improve and grow through the skills these games develop. But that’s just the thing, these games are only temporary realities. If abused, they lead to addiction, poor time management skills, and complete dependency in an escapist world created by false relationships and meaningless achievements. 

RING! Gym time is over. “Did you see that Susan?! I got bonus points for a dancing streak. I was on FIRE!” Freddy shouts.

“Good for you buddy, you did amazing. I’m glad you had fun,” I reply, tucking away his batman controller and leading him out the double doors, back into the real world.

Keep Our Elpis

Stop. Take a second to exam the workspace around you. There’s the laptop and the cellphone, always within arm’s reach. An alarm is always set to wake you up in the morning and music is always playing to provide company in an empty room.

Click. It’s Twitter time. Surprisingly, it’s so easy to encompass your exact emotion, situation, or thought in just merely 140 characters. Or is it? Facebook time. With all the freedom to write as much as you want or to upload as many pictures as you want, you choose to be succinct and aloof instead. A cool, easy-going portrayal of yourself formulated by purposefully unanswered bibliographical sections, model-esque profile pictures, and witty statuses defines your aura. Or does it? Flip to Instagram. Slightly blur the edges, attach a sequoia filter, then post your photo. BAM, artiste. By your photography skills and tasteful choice in scenery, the creative side of you is reflected, attracting flocks of followers who will admire and acknowledge you. Or will they?

Minimize. Homework is still a priority, even if it is diluted into the multiples of tabs already distracting you. Google is your Bible, Wikipedia your best friend. Typing isn’t a problem, multitasking is a joke. In the search box you type in your assignment: Greek mythology Pandora's Box. Literally in a blink of an eye, knowledge floods in, enriching you with the story of Zeus, Pandora, Epimetheus, and Prometheus. 

Done. Living in such a fast-paced society makes utilizing the internet a necessity. Connection is without a doubt key in surviving the digital culture we live in today. Whether it’s media, education, or entertainment that you want, it’s nicely organized and compacted into one smart phone or one laptop that epitomizes accessibility. Incredible, the media culture as we know it seems simple and transparent, but does technology need to physically explode for us to notice its crippling effect?

Think. Aren’t the adjectives simple and complex two sides of the same coin? For example, texting serves as the fastest and simplest mean of communication but in order to do so, our digital culture has had to adapt to another vernacular of “text-talk” while simultaneously experiencing an all-time low in face-to-face and voice-to-voice communication. In fact, the Conference for Information Systems Applied Research conducted an experiment with 168 participants in four different generation groups to test this theory. They found that 27% actually admitted to using texting as a means of purposefully avoiding face-to-face communication while 40% admitted to avoiding voice-to-voice communication. Furthermore, they found that the younger the age group was, the less interactive the participants were. Texting, and other quick, simple digital means, oozed out of personal lives to school, the workplace, and home. What does this mean for the English language? For family? Community? Simple, right?

Continue. Simple and complex are not our only antonyms. Transparency and murkiness plague our society. On one hand, our digital culture really has made life transparent, so terribly, unfortunately transparent. The original intent of linking together friends and family on social networking sites has been buried under the abuses that these interactive faces cultivated. Not in a million years would I have expected cyber bullying to be such a life threatening disease. Aggressive behavior dominates Facebook pages and takes advantage of public pictures and information available to truly destroy certain individuals. As verified by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 37% of teens reported being bullied at school while 52% have reported being bullied online. Despite the decreased amount of suicides overall, a general increase in suicide or suicidal attempts has been recognized especially in a younger group of 10 to 19 year olds. Also, statistics demonstrate a tender line obscuring the distinction between the victim and offender as reports indicate 23.1% reports of offending and 18.3% reports of victimization. The more information available, the more dangerous our society becomes. On the other hand, murkiness plays on a more personal level. Using a computer monitor or phone screen as a social mask to hide insecurities is a basic habit now. Do you really know who you are talking to?

Breathe. The temptation of taking on essentially any persona is a power impossible to resist when sitting in front of the world wide web’s library of photos, ideas, and potential idols. Personally, I’d much rather be a trendy, sexy, bleach blonde model than the average female college student nicknamed Studious Sangeun. Not only is the use of a false persona demeaning to individuality but the entire concept of originality and genuine depiction clouds over too. After all, it’s human nature to define ourselves, to identify with descriptions attributed to our nationality, ethnicity, and personality. Let’s take this a step further. If we’re hiding our own identities behind a computer screen, wouldn’t everyone else? In fact, in the past year (2011) identity fraud increased by 13% and more than 11.6 million American adults became subject to identity theft. The emphasis on a virtual life is exceedingly concerning and the idea of simple social networking becomes mangled as even revealing your high school can make you a target of identity thieves, or worse, stalkers. The possibilities are endless. Nothing is private or original anymore, not even ourselves.

Reflect. It seems as though the internet is the 21^st century’s Pandora’s Box. The endless capabilities for knowledge, power, and creativity itches at the human consciousness and provokes our attention, emphasizing our deepest desires for acknowledgment or acceptance. With all great powers, control is a necessity. Yes, our Pandora’s Box is a limitless cyber world that restructured our culture. We opened it, unleashing some horrible nightmares, treacherous consequences, and dangerous opportunities into the world but we still have our Spirit of Hope, Elpis, at the very bottom. Don’t forget the humans are at the sending and receiving ends of any virtual connection, don’t forget we exist in flesh, heart, and thought. Maybe then, our hope will continue to thrive as we better ourselves to use this newfound digital culture for good rather than bad. 

Bibliography