Please look through both Module 4A (APP World) and Module 5A (Social Media)in hindsight this will should all be in 1 set of panels.

The first key takeaway actually goes back to the ‘history’ section at the beginning of the semester—the stunningly short time that all this has taken to kick in.

The second key takeaway is the ubiquity of many of these APPs—most notably Facebook.  From Zero to over 1.2 BILLION in less than 15 years.  Compared to any technology it’s a stunning number, especially in such a short period of time.  Even more shocking is that it is the social APPs that dominate—the technology by which we communicate with others and present ourselves to the world.  If there ever was evidence that humans are social animals, this is it.

Another striking example of the accelerated rate of change is that WeChat presentation on Vimeo mentioned in the group post (at https://vimeo.com/201455689).  Not only is it an excellent analysis, but I think for most American users it is always a shock to realize that we are way behind the curve in many of these technologies, especially the social ones.  Try to envision some of the economic and social (especially economic) impacts if WeChat comes to dominate here as in it does in China.  Your jobs-careers may be strikingly different from what you envision today in just a few years if the Chinese are any example, and I should note that the same phenomena can be seen anywhere in East Asia (South Korea, Japan, Singapore…).

You can see the same phenomena when you read your Miller’s Facebook as what was then new (just 10 years ago) is now almost passe.  As we’ll see in the next installment, all of this has enormous implications when you look at individuals and groups (including all of us) are trying to define appropriate social norms and behaviors while constantly running to stay up with technological change.

The complex impacts of hyper-accelerated change is having on people and relationships is both poorly understood and extremely difficult to study.  As a social researcher, by the time I develop the research question and figure out how to collect the data I need, the target has moved off onto another platform or another population.

As we will see later, this may have some bearing on the striking persistence of Second Life as a social virtual world—the fact that change is relatively limited—you can leave for a couple of years and then come back to ‘the same’ may be in part responsible for the continued (limited) popularity of the site.

As you can see, this is an extremely short panel set and I’m thinking that it should be modified to larger related topic—phablets?  I’m open to suggestions, as while I don’t see a huge number of tablets on campus [it seems to either be phones or laptops], when you are out and about, I see a lot of them.  In addition, I frequently see students with laptops on while accessing their phone.  My current guess (very likely inaccurate) is that the sequence is: tablet when little, graduate to smartphone at 7-8 years old, laptop at college—added to phone.

If I’m right, then it helps to explain a phenomena we are noticing more with undergraduates nationally—while students are very effective on a small set of APPs, they have more difficulty than expected when using more complicated computer-based software and with computer/digital logic (moving items from Google Drive to Dropbox for example).

The key with this topic is that of portability—24/7 connectedness.  Keep this material in mind as we move in to the next set of panels dealing with the social impact of Applications and social media, where this portability and persistently-on aspect have been critical.

Studies suggest that there one very powerful motivation to move to new social media platforms is that of group identify—for the group to use the new platform before everyone else finds out about it—to be on top of what’s hot, what’s trending in social APPs.

One of the main complaints about Facebook is its ubiquity—it’s been around forever and everyone uses it.  This suggests that social APP usage has become a significant marker in group acceptance and identity, in the way that clothing, colors or piercing were key markers 10 years ago.  To the concern of phone makers, it is starting to look like the APP is surpassing the type of phone as the key social indicator—what social media you use is becoming more significant than what you use it on [iPhone8, Samsung or HTC…].

Look over this material carefully as it is central to the discussions for the rest of the semester.  There are two key concepts in this set of panels:

• The increasingly arbitrary and artificial distinction between “physical” reality [real world] and “digital” reality [artificial world]. Especially when looked at from a cross-cultural perspective, the distinction becomes more limited to the American world view and value system and much less a concrete, universal distinction.  This is the central theme in panels 2-4 [blurring of realities].

• The not very subtle economic [i.e., for profit] engine that drives most of social media. In most cases people seem blissfully unaware of the market forces that shape their behavior, especially as it relates to “free” social APPs.  Panels 5-7 [economics of digital realities] focus on this issue.

• The last set of panels (8-9) [near future] move this into the next 10 years or so. This is pulled from a number of sources including Singularity.com and Frank Diana’s blog.  As with earlier material, note the very short timeline for major changes and the social implications.  From your own POV, think of how these will impact you in the next 5-10 years—this all links back to the Learning material I sent out yesterday.  The skill sets needed to successfully navigate the next 10-20 years are clear, but the number of job seekers with them is very small.  The near future can be seen as a potential disaster or a potential opportunity.

This consists of the short panel set outlining some general concepts that you need to look at the material in detail.  For more specifics on theoretical approaches I attached the B1 Theory module and B2 Qualitative Methods module used in my classes.

These provide the details for the Dig Realities panels.  The last panels deal with business/costing issues, which are central to understanding many of the moral-ethical decisions made in the tech industry, especially in regards to social media.  These also tie back into the idea of “Free APPs” versus for-profit companies and social media.

Think of this set as a set of potential tools that you want to be aware of, so that you can recall them when you need an overall intellectual model.

First up, the Leamnson results.  If you look at the panels, you will note that it was a good survey size of Fall Day CUH students, at N=73.  There are several key points in the results:

• Social media is the main time drain for CUH students—with no variation between intro and upper-division students. Even more compelling was the ambivalence you have (collectively) towards social media, seeing it as a social requirement but seeing as a major factor of emotional and social stress.  Somewhat unique to the Pacific, it was also frequently noted as a way that relatives micro-manage your affairs long-distance, another major source of stress.  It’s important to place this within the time-disruption findings, that it takes 25-30 minutes to get back on-task after media disruption.  If there is emotional input, that number goes up radically.  So your ability to get quality work done on time is seriously compromised by the dominance of social media.
• Most upsetting to those of us who are academics, CUH students only spend the same amount of out-of-class time on course material as that spent sitting in class. At best there was a 1:1 correlation between in-class/outside-class time—note that this includes readings, assignments, everything.  From my end of that equation I don’t see how students can gain knowledge of the material, but that’s your numbers.
• The ONLY difference in the numbers wasn’t between lower and upper-division courses, but whether they were required or not. Required courses you spend the absolute minimum of your time on—but on elective courses you spend significantly more time.  In the end, you take away a lot more knowledge from the courses you choose to take than from the courses you have to take.

 

LEARNING SKILLS MODULE: Better titled ‘Being Employable’

These are the list of skills you need to have [taken from a number of sources and also from my own background as a consultant].  To put this in context, think of the robot barrista vid I sent out.  If you work at Starbucks that’s not competition you want to see.  Many of the careers you will be in haven’t been invented yet, and many of the careers around now will be gone or seriously morphed within 10 years.  Statistically, you will be changing jobs every 4-6 years, and changing CAREERS every 10-12 years.  So knowing how to learn will keep you employable in the future.

Key Points:

• You have to develop these skills until they become habits—at best, permanent habits that you automatically use on almost all occasions. If you have to consciously think to use these skills then you haven’t trained or used them enough.
• You should have been trained in these from your K-12 education experience, but as far as we can see, it never happened. Much of this appears to be the result of family and other social groups outside of the formal school system dropping the ball on training you, but the Educational system also failed by emphasizing short-term memory skills (no child left behind measures for example).  End result is most of you don’t have these skills in any functional way.
• During the Semester we will go through some strategies to help you build up this skill set, though it’s trickier online vs. sit-down. So we’ll have to see how it goes.  This means that I need feedback from you when you don’t get something, want clarification, alternatives, more detail—whatever.
• The Assessing Thinking bullets are those developed for what is sometimes called active listening, and should be used whenever material [like this class material] is presented to you.
• Being comfortable with the Educational Skills is a major factor in being an attractive job candidate, so practice them.

We will be getting into the techniques of how-to next week

There are two main takeaways from this set of panels:

• Notice the lack of clear relationship between technology and social change;
• The tremendous acceleration in technological change in extremely short periods of times—we move from changes over hundreds of years; down to changes in generations; down to changes in 2-5 years—the norm now.

Remember—when you were in Elementary School, you didn’t have Facebook because it wasn’t built yet.  You might feel like a dinosaur, but you’re not that old—it’s just that the changes are happening so fast.

Feel free to send in other contributions to add to this timeline, especially in regards to social games, since that’s not an area I’m into or familiar with.

AGAIN, HAVE THE POWERPOINT OPEN WHILE GOING THROUGH THE BLOG COMMENTS

JUMP TO PANEL 3—  don’t worry, we will get back to Panel 2 [self-ego diagram] later

Module 1AB Reaction Paper Part 1:

Look over each line in Panel 3 [social change evidence] through Panel 5 [pervasive nature].  Ponder over a couple of critical thinking points on each, such as A) am I a part of this statistic and behavior?  B) how many of my friends and other people I work with are part of this group?

Then fast-forward to 2025—given these behavior patterns, how will our social patterns have changed by then (if at all)?

HOLD ONTO YOUR ANSWER until you answer Part 2 below.

This apparent contradiction of massively increased social networking and increased individual perceived isolation is quickly becoming one of the major unanticipated consequences of digital media today.  While everyone accepts the data, predicting trends are all over the chart, generally clustering around the two nodes of “Tech is Good” and the opposing node of “Digital World of Doom”.  Ironically, both can be accused of reflecting the PERCEPTUAL BUBBLE definition—that of seeing and reinforcing a very particular point of view.

This same data-trend dichotomy can also be seen when you move on to Panel 6-7 [app gen specifics].  All of you fall at the fringe of this group, since you’re essentially digital fossils, but the contingent right behind you—currently just starting High School, are full dues-paying members of the App Generation.

Module 1AB Reaction Paper Part 2:

Do the same critical thinking points on each, such as A) am I a part of this statistic and behavior?  B) how many of my friends and other people I work with are part of this group?  But this time only looking at the “under-20” group.

Then again, fast-forward to 2025—given these behavior patterns, how will our social patterns have changed by then (if at all)?

OK, send me the Reaction Paper, adding the following—which of those stats/numbers did you find the most compelling?  The most shocking?

Keep in mind these social data points and your answers, as we will be referring back to them through the semester.

Last but certainly not least, Panel 2 [self-geo diagram]

This is a visual to help you understand the following concept-heavy post.

If you want to see a very detailed discussion of this topic take a look at Mathews, Gordon  1996.  What Makes Life Worth Living?  How Japanese and Americans Make Sense of Their Worlds.  Berkeley: Univ. Calif Press.  This is also the central theme of post-1964 Americans in Twenge, Jean  2006.  Generation Me.  NY: Free Press.

There are several paired opposing concepts that are central to understanding perception and self-identity.  One is internalized vs. externalized sense of self.  The other is group-collective self orientation vs. individual-self orientation.

Internalized Sense of Self: Your world view, self-identity, perception of what you are, your relationship with others and the world around you, are largely based on a set of parameters that you have developed internally.  From various sources, you have built up your unique sense-identity.  Normative in Japanese society, this is ikigai in Japanese.  There really isn’t a good English translation for the term.  In this framework you have only limited interest in how strangers view and/or judge you.

Externalized Sense of Self: Your world view, self-identity, perception of what you are, your relationship with others and the world around you, are largely based on how others view and react to you—the judgments they make of you.  Their external opinions are central to your self-identity.  The parameters you use for your world view and self-identity are largely the result of a compilation of the opinion of others—of external input.  In this framework you are extremely interested in how strangers view and/or judge you.

Group-Collective Orientation: Your sense of self and world view are largely driven by your group of association, the collective of those that are important to you.  Individual choice will take back seat to what the group wants.

Individual-Self Orientation: Your sense of self and world view are largely driven by your self-perception and identity, not that of the group or collective that is important to you.  Your individual choices are more critical than the wishes of others.

Critical Thinking: Where would you place yourself in this chart?  Kanye West or Kim Kardashian?  Pope Francis?  Why? Where would you put a group that is consumed by the need to follow Facebook trends?  Why?

Apps and Avatars:

Think for a second about a “free” app you use—whether it be Facebook, YouTube, whatever…  At some point they have software coders and designers, a ton of expenses relating to digital storage, web development, customer service…  If you’re using the “free app”, then who pays the bills?

This is the term MONETIZE—to come up with a way to make something generate money—to make it pay for itself (and show a profit).  This is why there are banners and side-bar advertising in Facebook, pop-up adds in your video on YouTube, etc…  These are all ways to pay the bills.  More subtle is the collection of all your personal data—the infamous “big data” that is such a hot topic in biz tech circles.  Many Apps, from the moment you clicked the “I agree” when you first downloaded the App, collect everything that you put on your device–texting, pics, checking websites, online purchases…  You might only use the app to text or send pics (say Snapchat), but their data collection is going on all the time your phone/tablet/computer is on, not just when you’re using the app.  This is “data mining” and it’s a very lucrative business.  You see it in the very targeted adds you see.

This brings up the second concept, to COMMODIFY.  This has been a ‘hot button’ topic here in Hawaii for generations, especially related to tourism.  If you market “aloha”, but you do so to make sales, or get a tip, you have placed a cash value on both the term and the attached behavior and/or value.  In fact the larger discussion of service tips and the fact that they have become largely involuntary in many industries in the U.S. is the same issue.  If generosity is given cash value, are you being generous because you morally-socially should, or for the cash?  Who decides?  For social media Apps to be successful today they not only have to find out a way to monetize their service—but they also have to do so while making the App appear “free” to the end user.

But if they want to stay around they need persistent use and growth and this usually involves the commodification of behavior in some way.  The more they can make the App a social necessity, the more ways to make money off of it—not only for them, but also for selected users.  Miller talks about this with Facebook users who have made Facebook their business.  This is a common pattern in Second Life, when commodification of a range of objects, behaviors, and other things have become a full-time job for a number of residents.  The last two panels—the “like” button and like vs. want are views of this shaping of behavior by profit-driven companies.

Since you have already been wandering around Second Life, the VIRTUAL WORLDS concepts should be pretty obvious—though as we will see later, that can sometimes seem like the tip of a very large iceberg of hidden social identity and meanings.  A real key concept to keep in mind both while wandering in Second Life, but also in the larger context of how you present yourself in social media such as Facebook or Instagram, would be that of the AVATAR.  As we will see, the minute that you make communication asynchronous, you are in the business of ‘avatar-building’, as you are able to share how you are presented to the digital world—you have the ability to shape your image.

SET UP THE MODULE 1A POWERPOINT UP WHILE READING THIS SO THAT YOU CAN REFER BACK AND FORTH

As you flip through this slide set, you should notice that most of the terms are in common use—one of the main purposes of this set is to clarify and specify what the terms mean.  A good example would be CULTURE—used (and misused) all the time, but we want to keep to the narrow professional definition.  Note the built-in tension—on one hand all cultures are innately conservative, as people teach the young generation based on their past (“when I was growing up…”)—but at the same time cultures are constantly in a state of change, as conditions and the larger world change.  This can be seen with the discussion about “proper phone etiquette” and other aspects of social media.  Do old social norms/rules apply to new technology, or does new technology demand new social norms?  Who says?  Who decides?  Who has to follow the rules?

Note how dominant PERCEPTION is to all this discussion.  ETHNICITY is perceived—there are no strict criteria needed to be ‘ethnic’, just the 2 factors.  The same is true of COMMUNITY.  A lot of our quickly-changing world is based on what appears to be consensus, but again, consensus of whom?  Who’s left out?

Second Life is an excellent case in point, if you’ve started reading Boellsdorff—there are fairly consistent social norms in SL, but the program is only 14 years old, and most residents have only been in-world for 1 year or so.  So how did the norms develop?  How do new members learn the norms?  Why do they follow them?  What are the consequences of breaking them?  This is the central part of his study of Second Life, and applies to much of Digital Realities.

This brings us to the first of our Critical Thinking questions [called KOAN here]:

KOAN I: LIVE CONCERT:

Is music more real is you hear it at a live concert with a live band? [live band, live audience, real time venue]

Is it just as real at a Hatsune Miku concert where the band is live, but the song and singer are digital? [digital singer, live backup band, live audience, real time venue]

Is it less real (how much) if you watch the Hatsune Miku LA concert grabbed by phone on youtube? –[at https://youtu.be/8_9X5wjJ7N8?t=1429]

KOAN II: Trance State Clubbing:

You and some friends go out to a club featuring a famous Trance-mix DJ.  You find yourself dancing and so caught up in the music, especially the beat, that you start to forget where you are.  You haven’t had much to drink, and no drugs.  All the sudden you find yourself dancing with a rather cute [kawaii] pink elephant.

What part of this experience is real?

What part isn’t real?

-SHARE YOUR ANSWERS TO THE KOAN ABOVE AS A REACTION PAPER-

Part 2–REALITIES:  As you thought over the Koan above you should have had to separate the “real” from the “unreal”.  It seems straightforward until you look at your world and how you interact with others, and then it gets complicated real quick.

Thinking of your assignments so far, draw a diagram that shows what you consider the overlap to be between physical and digital reality.

Now add in virtual worlds; virtual reality; augmented reality

Where does a Hatsune Miku concert fit in your diagram?

Sitting in my classroom in SL during our Wednesday class session?

VIRTUAL REALITY has become the hot topic in tech circles in the last 3-4 years, especially with Facebook’s purchase of the Oculus Rift VR system.  When a large number of people will be willing to stick headsets on for extended periods of time remains to be seen, especially because at it’s core VR assumes opposition to physical reality—so the two have to be isolated from each other.

By contrast AUGMENTED REALITY [key player is probably Microsoft Hololens] overlays physical reality with digital aspects—a Hatsune Miku performance is augmented reality.  This Hololens review gives a good idea of current thinking [at: https://youtu.be/NwY-6sQDYnk?t=539] which discusses the differences between AR and VR.

The VR-AR Koan is looking at this dividing line—in your view which one is personally more compelling?

1/19: Module 1: Introduction

I would suggest that you put two panels up: one with the powerpoint, the other with this commentary—that way you can use it as a narrative.  When I get my Facerig setup back up (don’t ask) I will try and provide verbal commentary, but for now we’ll just do text.

As you look through the first slides—the “What We Know” set, look at the numbers and think about each for a few seconds, remembering that none of this existed when you were in Kindergarten, and for the older ones, while you were in Elementary School.  What we take as normal has existed for a stunningly SHORT period of time.

This has all sorts of implications as we’ll see during the semester, probably the main one being the we [collectively and individually] have had no time to process these changes into our social world and fit them into our world.  In the past these technological changes have usually been single points, like the telephone 100 years ago—so the process is a lot less disruptive.  But the myriad of changes we are currently bombarded with, without any breaks or time-outs, has led to massive social disruption—witness the polarization in the U.S. related to the recent election cycle, “false news”, mistrust of traditional media, etc.

At a personal level, think of the lack of any clear etiquette guides on appropriate use of phones/social media on dates—is it OK to text while going out with someone?  Check on their social media posts?  If they leave it lying around unlocked, check to see who/what has been tweeted or snapped recently?  All this is symptomatic of people being increasingly at a loss as to whether the digital is their friend, their enemy, or their nightmare—or more likely all of the above at the same time.  Individuality and freedom are interesting concepts, and are central to those who drive social media usage, but at what price?

If you look at the first panels, we are most connected population in world history.  We also look like we are becoming the loneliest—scroll down to the Facebook specific panels and think about what all those mean, on something that didn’t exist 10 years ago.

Basic Premises Slides—these are presenting the set of assumptions central to our examination of this subject.  All of the assumptions [premises] are based on the data presented—of course all of these are “a work in progress” since the subject is constantly morphing in new ways.

A really key assumption is the shift from synchronic—say a face-to-face conversation or a phone call, towards a-synchronic interaction—such as a tweet or a post.  Many researchers are starting to link the loneliness, drop in social engagement and narcissism are being linked to a-synchronic interaction.  One author made what I thought was a real good point—in a-synchronic interaction you get to look over how you self-present, check out how you look-sound before hitting “send”.  You can filter out the bad-embarrassing pieces and so present your ‘best’ self to the world.  But then authenticity becomes ambiguous.  When you combine with private-becoming-public, the need to present best self is really critical with re-tweets, likes and forwards, so it seems you end up in a feedback loop where the idea that you may be seen by a number of people you don’t know really puts pressure on image and presentation vs. casual conversation.

A fascinating aspect of this which has gotten almost no discussion has been the replacement of voice with text, especially when you remember we are lugging around smart PHONES.  This is an individual/collective choice rather than technological.  When you combine this with the huge growth in selfie videos (Snapchat, Facebook…) [again, a-synchronic] we are back to imaging and interaction choices that people are choosing to make.

All of this leads to the ‘Blind Men and the Elephant’ cartoon [pulled from Google] as a parable about the difficulty of making sense of our digital world.  In the following slides we have the questions you have to keep in mind when looking at any of these issues:

Is it causative—something that implements change—such as Facebook?  If so, what are the effects or impacts?

Or is not causative, but rather just the effect?  If so, why this effect or impact?  What triggered it?  Where is it going?

How does it impact individuals?  The collective?  The social group?  What does it say about individuals?  The collective?

OK, now apply all this—do the Hatsune Miku assignment.  Use the Critical Thinking factors while you watch this video.

The last set of slides were pulled from a very well done presentation—he did a real good job of showing some of the potential unplanned consequences to new technology, so just quickly look them over—I think you’ll find them very interesting.

Next Up: Definitions & Concepts