This category contains posts relevant to the lectures or symposiums.
Are there limits to what we define as technology?
Previous theorists have said that technology is anything other than nature. But, Adrian noted that now there is no separation between ‘technology’ and nature. The condition we are in makes it impossible to escape technology. Take camping for example, you drive to your camping spot, set up a tent, and a plane may fly overhead etc.
An interesting point
Adrian made an interesting point about the Internet being in NO way virtual. He said, and I agree, that we renege all responsibility when saying that the Internet is just virtual. Adrian used the example of our phones, and the landfill this creates.
Why does the 80/20 rule seem to appear universally in the physical world?
In my opinion, this question is more an attempt to generate conversation and less about seeking a genuine answer i.e. asking a question for the sake of asking a question. I think Adrian’s answer – “I have no idea” – exemplifies this. Elliot and Jasmine made reference to Barabasi’s notes on growth and preferential attachment but, Adrian corrected that the 80/20 rule in the physical world is separate from power law distributions.
The long tail
By linking to the ‘long tail’ we are helping it become healthier and thereby avoiding the rich get richer phenomenon. There is more information in the long tail and we need to nurture this. For example, blogs contain specific information about specific topics, whereas A-list broadcasters like The Age only touch the surface in their attempt to cover a broad range of topics.
This was one of the questions explored in week eight’s symposium. Jasmine said ‘no,’ reasoning that networks function on group behaviours and relations between parts. In this way, we are the centre of our networks because they are based on our decisions and connections. Adrian made a link to the week’s readings which explored scale free networks. Importantly (and logically) he noted that scale free networks cannot be scale free if there is a centre or anything resembling a hierarchy. Instead, these networks continually grow and shape emerges. Adrian compared the Internet and railroads. The Internet is an example of a scale free network, a railroad isn’t. The shape of a railroad needs to be planned in advance or it simply won’t function. In saying this, even though there is no ‘architect’ or planning involved in the structure of the internet, random connections do create structure. This is disproving previous models which suggest all networks need a hub. These models reflect traditional societal models based on hierarchy or status.
Week 6’s symposium debated the question, ‘Do you think the digitalisation of literary texts and the use of the E-reader will eventually replace the physical book completely?’ Adrian stated that ‘the book’ is 400 years old and “to think it’s going to hang around for ever is incredibly naïve.” He believes the book is a temporary technology and texts are already dead.
As mentioned in my previous post Douglas, I don’t believe that books are dead or will become dead. Yes, I can concede that most books will adopt a digitalised form. This makes practical sense for large texts, like manuals and VCE books. Additionally, digital books will minimise environmental impacts and that is oh so trendy. But, there will always be a place for books.
Books will most likely become a more boutique thing. They will become more beautiful, more of a collector’s item as with coffee table books. This will only increase the cultural value of books. For centuries, we have identified books as symbols of knowledge. We value them as gifts and give them to children as soon as they are born. All over the world, there are huge libraries which house books. These structures and their contents are often protected under heritage listings. This and the value society places on them, means they will not disappear.
As mentioned by Brian, the E-reader is only a small transformation and it is still early days. There will no doubt be other transformations, but E-readers will not be the demise of books. He provides the example of music and its many different forms – vinyl, cassette tape, CD, iTunes, YouTube etc. – to highlight how a technology can evolve and adapt. The same goes for theatre which DID NOT disappear with the advent of film. On a side note, can you imagine a Priest and their congregation reading scripture from E-readers rather than the Bible? Somehow this seems unlikely.
If reading for pleasure, I cannot fathom why anyone would choose an E-reader over a REAL book. I love the smell and feel of books. I love receiving them as gifts, and finding a note written in the title page. Wherever I live, I always have a large bookshelf. It’s decoration, a talking piece, somewhere I can see memories. I love lending books to others, and having them scrawl comments or definitions throughout the pages. I love the look of old, worn-out books that have been read again and again or passed down through generations. But, I also love buying new books and the thrill I get from bending back the front cover and creasing the spine. I will NEVER EVER curl up next to the fire with an E-reader, how unromantic. Some things are best left unchanged.
Due to the National Tertiary Education Union calling a strike, we were provided with three YouTube links instead of a symposium. Like the previous symposiums, these links involve thinking about thinking and learning about learning.
The first link ‘Do Schools Kill Creativity’ featured Sir Ken Robinson talking about the importance of creativity in education. He believes that we [educators] squander children’s talents. I believe this is particularly evident in VCE. Doing well in VCE is more about remembering and regurgitating facts, then having talent or skill in a particular area. Subjects like legal studies and business management, require little to no interpretation. To do well you simply need to remember the information you have been taught.
Robinson believes that the education system needs to change. It needs to nurture creativity and recognise that it is as important as literacy. He makes a very valid point – educators are educating for a future that they don’t yet know about. For this reason, there is a great deal of unpredictability and a need for creativity. We don’t know what the world, or jobs for that matter, will be like in even five years’ time. Today’s students will need to be adaptable, and having the skill of creativity will ensure this.
On a side note, I found Sir Robinson very amusing. Follow the link to learn more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Michael Wesch ‘From Knowledgeable to Knowledge’ looks at changing students from being knowledgeable to knowledge-ABLE. This means that rather than dumping students into lecture theatres and relaying information, students should be taught how to create new information. Adrian is demonstrating a similar thought process by moving away from lectures and towards symposiums. Wesch also looks at new mediums of communication. Such mediums bring new opportunities for transparency and participation but, also new opportunities for control and monitoring. For this reason, we need critical thinking.
For more of Wesch, follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeaAHv4UTI8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Given the structure of Michael Wesch’s ‘The Machine is Us/ing Us,’ I found it easier to list the key points rather than summarize them
This is a quick piece which conveys the key points in an easy and interesting way. Take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Here are my ‘take home’ points from the lecture. . .
What separates design fiction from science fiction?
I am glad this question was asked as I was unsure what separated the two concepts. Brian noted that science fiction has a lot to do with technological fetishism, whereas design fiction is interested in the broader context within which technologies fit i.e. communities and institutions.
NEW TERM: ‘Wicked problem’
A ‘wicked problem’ doesn’t have a single answer or even an answer at all. The issue of asylum seekers was used by Adrian to explain this concept. Society has to combat this issue but, there is no clear answer. Design fiction can help to think through this complex issue, by imagining the outcome of new laws or programs.
As content producers is it more important to speculate far into the future or pay more attention to the present?
Elliot made a point about the ability of foresight, which I very much agree with. He said that it is less obvious how a design will unfold if you look too far into the future. Instead, design for the next thing after the next mass invention. This way you can more accurately foresee society’s future needs.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
Adrian stated that for any design to be relevant, it needs to be designed for mobile phones. This makes a lot of sense considering that mobile phones have become the medium through which we seem to do . . . well everything. No longer simply a way to call or text, we can now access the internet thus bank accounts, emails and pretty much everything else. For this reason society has become attached to their mobile phones.
Take away points