Katie's First Conference

Overall, I found the Social Media Conference last Tuesday to be a nice introduction into the world of academic conferences: not too big, not too scary, and a chance to present with other people.
I had the chance to go to the speaker immediately before our class presentation, who talked about Second Life. I had never heard of Second Life before, but after listening to the talk i felt that I was already familiar with the concept of the program. Once I realized that it sounded a lot like the Sims (which I have never played, but have heard enough about to feel like I know something about it) I was a little unimpressed. Personally, the idea of living in an online world (beyond facebook) does not interest me. I was interested in the pedagogical applications of the program, but was disappointed that that angle didn't get discussed more.
I felt that our class roundtable went well. I was a little surprised in the number of people in the audience (but I didn't really know what to expect). I think that I did a good job explaining my project to the group; it was nice to be able to share what I had been working on with others who would appreciate it for its potential. I was kind of disappointed that there weren't any questions (for anyone), but with five people in a short block of time I guess it can be expected.

When I grow up I want to be an LCD projector

In regard to my experiences as a presenter at the social media conference, I thought it would be appropriate to comment on the use of media and the audience’s reaction to it. First off, I don’t think I have to point out the irony of a new media presentation at a social media conference where the audio fails to work, but it seems important to mention considering the audience’s reaction. As is usually the case when there is an LCD present in the room all eyes migrate over to stare vacantly at the screen regardless of the presence of an image or not. I noticed that everyone in the room watched the screen while I presented. This is nothing unusual or unexpected—people have always been irresistibly drawn to the pale blue glow of an LCD projector. What did surprise me, however, was the audience’s reaction to the sound not working in my presentation. Where people were content to stare vacantly at the images of Stephen and my abomination, they were transformed into irritated beasts the second that the sound failed to work. Eyes were rolled, watches where checked, and peopled looked genuinely angry at the lack of sound. I thought the shift from docile cattle to hostile mob interesting because there seemed so little cause for the change. It was almost as if people felt that they were getting cheated out of part of the media they were promised—even though they were content to simply “watch” only moments before. I find it hard to believe that they were discontent because they wanted to hang on every word that Stephen and I spoke during the presentation; rather, I think they were evidencing human nature by intensely desiring something that they could not achieve. It wasn’t that they wanted to hear Stephen and my message. Instead, they were upset at being told that (in a roundabout sort of way) that they could not hear our message and it was the point of being told “no” that upset them so much. After all, what is the point of all new technology other than to prove to someone that the unachievable is within our grasp? For that matter, what is the point of new media and cyborg theory apart from shaking one’s fist at God to say, “see, I can create, too!”? In the end, I think the illusion of created perfection was shattered when the sound failed to work properly during my presentation, which left the audience feeling a tad hollow. I often look back with regret and wistfully wish that Stephen had been there: then we could have acted out our parts in a “live” presentation and gotten into a real fistfight at the end. Oh well.

2nd life? Or the lack there of.

I attended the presentation on second life, and most of what I would say about it would generally be very negative. BUT of the sake of thinking outside the box and trying to get away from my own bias I am going to attempt a paragraph or two of positive things. However, I will be voicing my concerns later in this blog.

Second life seems like a great way for many cultures (provided they have computers) to mingle in a common area and learn from each other. I like how using this program would allow several people from all over the world to share ideas or work on a common project. It eliminates the need for people to be in the same room together to have "live" (i use the term loosely) interactions. It would also provide a sort of amenity, and maybe create an environment where ideas could be shared more openly since it would not be a face to face situation.

Educationally, I think virtual field trips would be a great way for students to learn, especially about the Internet and its capabilities. Children should be provided with a safe place in the Internet where they can interact with each other without the age division that usually happens in schools (i.e. freshman are not cool enough to hang out with upper class men). I see possibilities for kids to explore art, music, culture, design, computer graphics, and much more in a safe school environment where the teacher could provide a watchful eye on what they were doing, not from the computer program but from walking around the room and allowing the students to be in control. I think it would be a great place for interaction between schools in different countries, imagine a USA high school Spanish class taking a virtual field trip with a Spanish high school's English class. Certain trips could be strictly Spanish speaking and others strictly English, children would be allowed to learn from their peers in another country rather than an old woman in the front of the classroom yelling at them the correct way to say "elephant."

HOWEVER, I do believe this technology has some downfalls. I see this technology as a way for people to live in a fantasy world, one where they get to look the way they want, live where and how they want, and basically have no reason to ever want to enter the world outside of computers. I don't see this program/game/ whatever it is bringing out the best in people. Instead I see it creating a large group of people afraid of live social interaction with very few social skills, not to mention very out of shape and unhealthy. Lets face it even though you may workout in the virtual world your really tush is still going to be fat. Humans need interaction, biologically we are a social species and this technology does not support that fundamental need. Ignoring this, will only lead to higher depression rates and more people on prescription drugs, and I am pretty sure that the "virtual sex" the guy mentioned isn't going to cut it. Although maybe that's a way to sell this "2nd life"... "Can't get laid in the real world? Try virtual dating!" But seriously, I think the message this program send is not a good one. I guess during the presentation the country song "I'm SO much cooler online" kept running through my head. In the end I find the "world" a way of escaping the real world in an attempt to be something we are not, and that is not a good reason to create a "2nd life."

Response to the Conference

I attended a presentation right before ours on Second Life. Before I went to the presentation, I knew that Second Life was a virtual world built by the members who essentially created a virtual identity through the program, but I didn’t know much else. Listening to the presentation, I learned that Second Life allows members to attend online conferences, lectures, and plays by means of their avatar, a virtual representation of themselves. They are also able to access media such as the radio and television through streaming. While avatars are at these functions, they are able to communicate with each other through typed language like chat rooms and instant messaging. However, there are applications that allow members to use their voice to speak through their avatar. These applications, like real life spoken communication, require avatars to be close to each other and make voices softer or louder depending on how far apart the avatars are.

Second Life can be used for many purposes like social network, making it like a much more elaborate Facebook or Myspace, as well as for educational purposes. Right now, it can be difficult for educators to use Second Life because there is a Teen Second Life and Adult Second Life and teachers need to get security clearance before they can accompany their students on field trips or other educational experiences in Teen Second Life.

Although, Second Life is a beautiful virtual place, I can not see myself ever taking part in it. While I can see how it could be a useful teaching or social networking tool, I can’t quite get past the fact that it is a virtual place that many people use to substitute for real human interactions. The presenter mentioned that one of Second Life’s assets is that it allows for shared real time experiences like teleporting your avatar to meet friends to watch a movie or attend a party. However, while this is a form of social interaction, I can’t get past the fact that while these interactions can be real and allow humans to interact, each human involved is only able to interact with others through their computer which I feel take away from the shared real time experience the presenter thought was so great.

As far as our presentation, I thought it went well. It was fun to see everyone’s finished products and visit with our audience about the projects. While we all had very different projects and used different methods to create them, it was interesting to see how many of us experienced the same problems such as finding a host for our projects and facing obstacles when the software didn’t want to do what we wanted it to.

Cybernetic Tropies

From the Dwell blog. These critters have infrared sensors and react in biological ways that undermine some of the ideological statements that traditional taxidermy establishes.