A few items especially stood out to me during this new reading. The first one was in Chapter 1, where Krug talked about being encouraged to frame experiences into language that flows through new media (page 7, that was my interpretation of his quote anyway, so I am going with it). I think this is an excellent point, especially in the social networking world.
Telling a friend about something you did or giving a lecture doesn't often cut it for the general population. These days, to be meaningful information, it has to be shared on the Internet and through other popular forms via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, blogs, etc. In fact, a lot of people expect certain things to be aired online (look at TED/TEDx talks).
Another section that stood out to me was on learning and test taking when he talked about students wanting bulleted lists and expecting exams based on the simple lists. Why do you think they are favored? I do think students are capable of "examining complex arguments" and applying them to real world scenarios, but that's not what they're given. I suppose it might be a "chicken and egg" scenario, but from personal experience it seems exams are bland (multiple choice) instead of thought provoking (interpretation) from an early age. With the exception of math, most exams I took in grade school and some in college typically involved memorizing material from slides and taking a multiple choice test. If this is what students are taught, how can they be expected to accept anything more?
If students have always been given multiple choice and real world application has not been encouraged, of course they will think items are "too hard." I like to think the usage of textbooks (not novels) furthers this issue. I did notice teachers in undergrad trying to change up material/exams to make the contests more universally applicable and encourage creative thought and problem solving, but I would guess a lof of colleges and grade schools lag behind.
The whole "people model what they see on screens" subject is also interesting to me. I've had an interest in the growing rate of narcissism for a while and the Internet is definitely a catalyst. People can see endless displays of all sorts of behaviors/fashions/etc. everyday - more than could previously be accessed with movies and magazines. Adolescents can go on Instagram, style websites, etc. to see what peers and celebrities look like and are doing. Seeing as part of my senior thesis dealt with advertising and body image, I know (and many do) how detrimental images of skinny, seemingly perfect women can be to impressionable teens/women. That's a whole different topic though, and I've already droned on quite a bit!
Monday, November 26, 2012
Monday, November 19, 2012
Yay!
Overly enthusiastic title, I kno. But, I really did enjoy the readings this week. I was familiar with quite a few things that were discussed, but it was nice to get other perspectives and learn in the process. I found the reading especially fascinating because I work in search marketing and am around these concepts all day. THE CONTENT. THE LINKS. LINKS LINKS LINKS.
Anyway, I've always been fascinated by consumer behavior. However, I'm a bit iffy about personalized search. Eli voices these concerns quite nicely in his TED Talk video. Sure, with personalization we get what Google thinks we want, and it may indeed be what we want. But are we missing out on items that would otherwise take us in new directions? When results are based on our activity, what our friends like, etc. are we being denied hidden treasures out there that may uncover passions we never knew we had?
I think the bit about buying on impulse or after being reminded is all too true. I am reminded I need something if I see it at the store and also if it shows up in one of those targeted ads online. It's easy to forget when I shop at a store - I always tell myself if I haven't forgotten about something I didn't purchase in a week or two, then I will get it. I usually always forget. When it comes to the internet, forgetting isn't so easy.
It does get a little overwhelming (and sad) at times when the pair of shoes I want but don't need is splashed across the screen every time I open a new window. The products almost speak to me - "buy me, buy me!" - and, well, sometimes I do. Sometimes an email or a targeted ad brings something to my mind I would have forgotten about otherwise. +1 advertisers/businesses, -1 Alyssa's bank account.
I do, however, belong to the large group of people who enjoy the "watch instantly" feature on Netflix and the suggestions given. I've watched a lot of great movies I probably never would have found otherwise. Back to my earlier point, does this mean I might be missing something? Perhaps. I think a good way to counter the problem would be to offer a "random movie/search/etc." generator that is completely unbiased (if that's even possible nowadays). Kind of like StumbleUpon, except you don't pick your preferences and the results aren't based on "thumbs up or downs" or any other type of voting/feedback. If you don't like the random suggestions, you always can return to the targeted ones.
Anyway, I've always been fascinated by consumer behavior. However, I'm a bit iffy about personalized search. Eli voices these concerns quite nicely in his TED Talk video. Sure, with personalization we get what Google thinks we want, and it may indeed be what we want. But are we missing out on items that would otherwise take us in new directions? When results are based on our activity, what our friends like, etc. are we being denied hidden treasures out there that may uncover passions we never knew we had?
I think the bit about buying on impulse or after being reminded is all too true. I am reminded I need something if I see it at the store and also if it shows up in one of those targeted ads online. It's easy to forget when I shop at a store - I always tell myself if I haven't forgotten about something I didn't purchase in a week or two, then I will get it. I usually always forget. When it comes to the internet, forgetting isn't so easy.
It does get a little overwhelming (and sad) at times when the pair of shoes I want but don't need is splashed across the screen every time I open a new window. The products almost speak to me - "buy me, buy me!" - and, well, sometimes I do. Sometimes an email or a targeted ad brings something to my mind I would have forgotten about otherwise. +1 advertisers/businesses, -1 Alyssa's bank account.
I do, however, belong to the large group of people who enjoy the "watch instantly" feature on Netflix and the suggestions given. I've watched a lot of great movies I probably never would have found otherwise. Back to my earlier point, does this mean I might be missing something? Perhaps. I think a good way to counter the problem would be to offer a "random movie/search/etc." generator that is completely unbiased (if that's even possible nowadays). Kind of like StumbleUpon, except you don't pick your preferences and the results aren't based on "thumbs up or downs" or any other type of voting/feedback. If you don't like the random suggestions, you always can return to the targeted ones.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Invisible Technologies
It's funny how often class content can overlap. When reading this chapter, I thought of Alex's class and how we discussed "junk science" (such as polling and quizzes that result in junk information) and "inventing variables." Junk science makes it a lot harder to find good, clean data (something that always frustrates me when I have to do research).
I agree with Postman's comments that everything these days "has" to be quantified in some manner. Grades, intelligence, beauty, credit score. However, as we discussed in Alex's class, do we really know what we're measuring? Does that thing even exist? Can you reduce some concept into one variable? When it comes to quantitative research, I suppose there is no other way, but then can you really trust the results?
Are SAT/ACT/IQ tests really accurate measures of intelligence? I've always thought probably not. Some people are great test takers. Some people are awful test takers. Some people do wonderfully in life and score low on tests. Maybe society keeps perfecting the tests, but they still aren't that great, in my opinion. I hope college admissions never do away with entrance essays.
In fact, I found this interesting article on ProQuest (but had a difficult time finding ones about IQ test unreliability). The article, titled "IQ-test mistake means boy wastes two years in special ed: Angry father suing for $200,000" shows the danger of solely relying on such measures when it comes to important decisions such as education.
Another article from 2009 talks about the widening racial gap in ACT test scores. Does that mean african american students are less intelligent than white students? I don't think so. There are so many different types of intelligence. Problem solving skills. Book smarts. Street smarts. People smarts.
On language, I think it is an easy way to categorize things. I'm sure pre-language people still divided things into categories but perhaps had a harder way to communicate it. I haven't done a lot of other reading on language other than Chomsky, although I haven't read his work for a couple years.
I don't know how you quantity something such as beauty, either. I think beauty measures can improve with a great personality to match. Beauty also is in the eye of the beholder and based on culture. Although symmetry, smooth skin, etc. pretty much seem to be universal, there also is evidence that the ideal hip to waist ratio is not the same in all countries (this article showed it wasn't a significant predictor of attractiveness in Britain).
Looking forward to class tomorrow!
I agree with Postman's comments that everything these days "has" to be quantified in some manner. Grades, intelligence, beauty, credit score. However, as we discussed in Alex's class, do we really know what we're measuring? Does that thing even exist? Can you reduce some concept into one variable? When it comes to quantitative research, I suppose there is no other way, but then can you really trust the results?
Are SAT/ACT/IQ tests really accurate measures of intelligence? I've always thought probably not. Some people are great test takers. Some people are awful test takers. Some people do wonderfully in life and score low on tests. Maybe society keeps perfecting the tests, but they still aren't that great, in my opinion. I hope college admissions never do away with entrance essays.
In fact, I found this interesting article on ProQuest (but had a difficult time finding ones about IQ test unreliability). The article, titled "IQ-test mistake means boy wastes two years in special ed: Angry father suing for $200,000" shows the danger of solely relying on such measures when it comes to important decisions such as education.
Another article from 2009 talks about the widening racial gap in ACT test scores. Does that mean african american students are less intelligent than white students? I don't think so. There are so many different types of intelligence. Problem solving skills. Book smarts. Street smarts. People smarts.
On language, I think it is an easy way to categorize things. I'm sure pre-language people still divided things into categories but perhaps had a harder way to communicate it. I haven't done a lot of other reading on language other than Chomsky, although I haven't read his work for a couple years.
I don't know how you quantity something such as beauty, either. I think beauty measures can improve with a great personality to match. Beauty also is in the eye of the beholder and based on culture. Although symmetry, smooth skin, etc. pretty much seem to be universal, there also is evidence that the ideal hip to waist ratio is not the same in all countries (this article showed it wasn't a significant predictor of attractiveness in Britain).
Looking forward to class tomorrow!
Monday, November 5, 2012
On Postman and Medical Technology
What a scary chapter, but at the same time it is a bit comforting. It's hard not to be worried about cancer, health problems, etc. when they are so prevalent in society. I've had family members who have died from cancer and I have a member with cancer at the current time and it's a lot to go through.
I think technology in healthcare is good when it is used appropriately. Catching conditions early can save lives. Where it gets scary is when you read about x-ray radiation and unnecessary surgeries performed. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria because doctors over prescribe antibiotics is unsettling. Today there's a pill for everything. I can only hope for more holistic doctors in the future because I honestly believe in the effectiveness of natural remedies.
I do think there is too much reliance on technology when it comes to the medical field, but Postman made some good points. People expect certain treatment options. People want to feel safe and in control of their health. They want to make sure everything is okay. Honestly, I think the Internet has turned a lot of people into hypochondriacs because if you put your symptoms into Google or WebMD, a multitude of conditions come up (and there almost always are serious ones).
I think annual check-ups and blood tests are great to have. One thing I like about my doctor is that she is very thorough and schedules appointments far enough apart so she can spend a good 15-20 minutes talking to you about life, any health problems, etc. She stays up to date on research and is very passionate about actually practicing medicine instead of walking around with an iPad and chatting for 5 minutes before leaving the room.
I can't say I've had a lot of bad experiences with technology in the healthcare field. I mean, I've had a few surgeries and gotten a few x-rays, but nothing major. When I was having sleep trouble I first had to keep a sleep diary for a few weeks before going in for an actual study. Again, I think technology can be useful when it is absolutely needed for practicing medicine, but it shouldn't rule doctors. I think doctors should rely on instinct and experience, but thankfully the ones I've had have seemed to do just that.
I think holistic doctors and healers are going to increasingly become more valuable...well, for skeptics like me, at least. I think meditation, yoga, and other forms of exercise can help balance the mind. I think a good diet and certain remedies can help with certain conditions. I still don't think a lot of doctors really know how much of certain conditions are genetic and how much are based on the environment. Perhaps they never will.
I think technology in healthcare is good when it is used appropriately. Catching conditions early can save lives. Where it gets scary is when you read about x-ray radiation and unnecessary surgeries performed. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria because doctors over prescribe antibiotics is unsettling. Today there's a pill for everything. I can only hope for more holistic doctors in the future because I honestly believe in the effectiveness of natural remedies.
I do think there is too much reliance on technology when it comes to the medical field, but Postman made some good points. People expect certain treatment options. People want to feel safe and in control of their health. They want to make sure everything is okay. Honestly, I think the Internet has turned a lot of people into hypochondriacs because if you put your symptoms into Google or WebMD, a multitude of conditions come up (and there almost always are serious ones).
I think annual check-ups and blood tests are great to have. One thing I like about my doctor is that she is very thorough and schedules appointments far enough apart so she can spend a good 15-20 minutes talking to you about life, any health problems, etc. She stays up to date on research and is very passionate about actually practicing medicine instead of walking around with an iPad and chatting for 5 minutes before leaving the room.
I can't say I've had a lot of bad experiences with technology in the healthcare field. I mean, I've had a few surgeries and gotten a few x-rays, but nothing major. When I was having sleep trouble I first had to keep a sleep diary for a few weeks before going in for an actual study. Again, I think technology can be useful when it is absolutely needed for practicing medicine, but it shouldn't rule doctors. I think doctors should rely on instinct and experience, but thankfully the ones I've had have seemed to do just that.
I think holistic doctors and healers are going to increasingly become more valuable...well, for skeptics like me, at least. I think meditation, yoga, and other forms of exercise can help balance the mind. I think a good diet and certain remedies can help with certain conditions. I still don't think a lot of doctors really know how much of certain conditions are genetic and how much are based on the environment. Perhaps they never will.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)