Status update

So far, I have received 111 responses to my online survey; I suspect that this will be the final total of respondents. Most of the respondents have indicated a familiarity with most technology, with over 95% of them reporting to either be “completely dependent” on or using computerized technology “a lot” in their job or school work. I would seem to have honed in my targeted demographic (having posted my survey on the “geek” “technology” and “philosophy of science” subreddits described in my proposal). In fact, some of the more savvy respondents posted on the forums a concern that the survey would not be representative to the population – as I had explained the study was for a paper, but did not explicatively say the study was on cybernatives. One respondent even wrote:

"You should be very careful of bias in this survey. you're putting this survey on a website that is a much more advanced usergroup, and you will get significant differences between this cohort and the general population. At this point, even if the survey is flawed, it's going to have a huge skew to it and I don't think it's going to be generalizable to the general population."

It would appear that I reached my target study population, even based on consensus by that population.

While I was successful in finding the appropriate user population, in retrospect, the survey questions could have been focused differently given where I am at with my outside readings. Bearing in mind that I changed topics midway through my research, in future studies, I would approach the topic of “technophobia” in a different light. I first went into the subject under the concept that technophobia is akin to a state of existence. Older people had technophobia, young people did not; those unfamiliar with computers were scared of them, those who grew up with computers loved them. In my mind before my research, this condition was similar to being left or right handed – environmental factors may affect things, but once the situation is set, it is set for life. On the contrary, a much better analogy would be to compare technophobia to a disease.

The “technophobia” as a disease model works on several levels. I have found instances of technophobia being transmitted and induced, as with media hyped scares on technological issues (ranging from genetically modified foods, to the Y2K scare, to the fear about airport scanners indicated by my survey). Technophobia can be “cured” with enough enlightening facts, as demonstrated in Lusk’s article from an earlier blog entry. Finally, technophobia can be “vaccinated” against, as shown with myriad early education programs in school. I hope to expand on this disease model in my upcoming paper and structure some of my research around it. Personally, it has been an infinitely more useful paradigm with which to think of the subject.

Back to the revision on my survey questions: They have, so far, proven that those taking my survey are largely computer savvy (beyond where I found my subject pool). The survey indicates these cybernatives are not concerned about far flung technological catastrophes (like the 43% who think it is at least possible for computers to surpass humanity, yet over 90% agree we should not limit computer advancement to prevent this). However, the same group of people is awfully concerned about more “pop cultural” technological scares, like airport body scanners, online mentoring, and closed circuit televisions in public spaces. This goes a long way to show how media may have affected a group of people we normally think of as “immune” from the disease of technophobia. Had I had this disease model in mind earlier, I would have probably geared my questions more explicitly around it.

Overall, my research is going well. The responses have been useful (both in the survey and on the forums), and the literature review is turning up some themes which make for a useful model. Let me know what you think of the “disease” model; I was pretty darn happy with it.

France is Awesome

Lusk, Jayson L., Lisa O. House, Carlotta Valli, Sara R. Jaeger, Melissa Moore, J.L. Morrow, and W. B. Traill. "Effect of Information about Benefits of Biotechnology on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: Evidence from Experimental Auctions in the United States, England, and France." European Review of Agricultural Economics 31.2 (2004): 179-204. Print.



This week I have chosen to write about the article “Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France.” The article revolves around a study done on consumers’ willingness to buy genetically modified foods. Curiosity on the subject was sparked when the researchers noted that most people had little information on bioengineered foods, and that the most influential force in consumers’ decision making process came from either opponents or proponents to genetically modified food distribution in the form of advertisements.


The study involved taking a census of the consumers’ attitudes on genetically modified foods, then holding an auction among multiple participants. Some participants were given positive information, or “information treatments,” on genetically modified foods, such as lower pesticide use and improved economic benefits. Those who were given these treatments generally showed a significantly increased acceptance of bioengineered foods. There was also a negative correlation between someone’s prior knowledge and opinion of biotechnology and their ability to be swayed by the information treatments.

The significant part of this, for my future paper, is just how pliable consumers turned out to be in this study, and how much their anxiety about biotechnology influenced their purchasing decisions. This goes a long way to demonstrate that, not only is technophobia brought on by information, but it can be alleviated by the right information as well. While the paper does not go on to say this, one can also suppose that consumer trends ultimately determine and guide the advancement of technology (for instance, if no one buys genetically modified food, there will be no more advancement in that field). From this, we can also infer that technophobia can change the course of technology, and therefore societal development.

I’d recommend this paper to any interested in consumer trends or the economics of genetically modified foods. The article does a lot to explain the effects of advertisement and put them into a clinical environment.

******

Complete aside (please don’t factor into grade)

As a side note, France was the only country unaffected by the information treatments. Turns out, they’re propaganda proof. One more reason to love France.

Research Blog

The article I chose to write about this week is “Science Fiction and Science Policy” by Jen Schneider. The article is a literature review of two books which focus on technophobia and the way technology is depicted in the science fiction genre, Technophobia! Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman Technology and Mad, Bad and Dangerous? The Scientist and the Cinema.

            Schneider points to the fact that in the movies, “images [of scientists] are almost always negative and they affect the way viewers think about science and technology” and that these depictions speak to “deep rooted cultural anxieties.” In Mad, Bad and Dangerous, the author further ties current issue in with science fiction depictions, like the phallic symbolism of a rocket penetrating and exploring into unknown space.

            Technophobia! explains the differences between technophilia  and technophobia, one being an irrational fear of technology and the other being an irrational trust and love of it. The technophilic, for example, thinks that technology will eventually solve all problems, and a future cyborg form is what will ultimately shape humanity into perfection. Ultimately, Technophobia! decides science fiction overwhelming depicts a bleak, technophobic future where “losing our human identity, our freedom, our emotions, our values, and our lives to machines” are a norm.

            Both texts make “connections between the popular culture of science fiction and actual scientific and technological development.” A classic study, draw-the-scientist, asks children to draw what they think a scientist looks like. Invariably, they produce images heavily influenced by media (lab coats, beakers, etc) in a kind of scientist stereotype. This strongly indicates that the media people take in influences how they perceive reality.

            Both texts give good examples of popular science fiction depictions that encourage technophobia, like The Matrix, and give good indicators that media and technophobia influence real-world opinions and policy (indicators like the draw-the-scientist study above). However, “both texts fail to tackle questions of importance for understanding the relationship between how we view science fiction and how we view science and technology.” While the correlation itself is interesting, it does not prove extremely useful without somehow quantifying the exact level of influence science fiction has.

            I would recommend this article to someone as a brief introduction to the debate over technophobia, especially if they have any interest in how fiction relates to the subject. Ultimately, the article functions mainly as a literature review, and anything beyond an introduction would be better handled by the texts it references. It is otherwise a good chance to introduce lesser known topics in the debate like technophilia. For my larger paper, the article is useful as a quick reference to the correlation between science fiction, technophobia, and public policy without getting lost in the larger texts referenced. Also, I am interested in the referenced draw-the-scientist study and may look into that more in the future.

Schneider, Jen. "Science Fiction and Science Policy." Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26 (2006): 518-20. Print.

research blog

The article I have chosen to write about this week is “The Psychological Impact of Technology From a Global Perspective: A Study of Technological Sophistication and Technophobia in University Students From Twenty-Three Countries.” This discusses a study which is very similar to my own future paper. In the study, first year university students from around the world were asked survey questions to gauge their level of familiarity with technology (ranging from computers to answering machines) as well as questions to gauge their levels of technophobia. Most pertinent to me, is that the results are divided by country, with an extensive discussion about the findings in United States universities.

The United States was found to be saturated with technological devices, with nearly a dozen in each household and early exposure through the school system starting at the elementary level. Surprisingly, despite having the largest exposure to technology of the countries studied, the United States showed a lower middling level of technophobia (although, on a case study level, familiarity with technology had a negative relation with technophobia). This anxiety, according to this study, is largely due to disproportionately high media coverage of “negative events.” The secondary reason is that, although children may be exposed to computers in school, they may not be actually using them or are guided by technophobic teachers and are made to “feel victimized by the computer.” The section on the United States concludes by saying “it appears that Americans may be technophobic because of the perceived adverse effects of technology.”

Conversely, Hungary’s government pushes the idea of technology being a part of life, and the low exposure to technology is not reflected by how commonly accepted it is. Also, Israel has notably low level of technophobia, and this is influenced by a cultural accepting of technology being “natural.”

This study falls perfectly in line with my future paper – as the age group covered here is close to the age group I plan on studying. I hope to delve deeper into the “perceived adverse effects of technology” and look more closely at the “negative events” of the media coverage.

Journal Title

Computers in human behavior    ISSN  0747-5632   CODEN CHBEEQ 

Source

1995, vol. 11, n^o1, pp. 95-133 (3 p. 1/2)

Research Blog #2: I promise I'll start making more charismatic titles for these.

Punday, Daniel. "Involvement, Interruption, and Inevitability: Melancholy as an Aesthetic Principle in Game Narratives." SubStance 3rd ser. 33.105 (2004): 80-107. Print.

The reading I chose for this week deals with the literary quality of video games and hypertext fiction. I would like to apply this to the end of my future paper, when I project into the future of technologically influenced fictional works.

Daniel Punday, in his article Involvement, Interruption, and Inevitability: Melancholy as an Aesthetic Principle in Game Narratives, discusses themes common to both digital texts and traditional fiction, and he goes on to discuss the potential emotional impacts different texts have on readers. Purday claims that both game makers and hypertext writers have even more control and influence over their work that pen-and-paper authors, despite interactivity. Digital writers control the pace of new information, while traditional authors must worry about people skipping to the last chapter. Although, he does concede that there is a dichotomy between narrative and user autonomy, with the most autonomous games and hypertexts having the least directed narratives.

            Comparisons are then made between “subliterary” sentimental fiction and video games, mainly in reference to similar pacing. While sentimental fiction has an emotionally charged plot, interrupted by long spells of purple prose meant to give the reader time to reflect, games have plot interrupted by bouts of play. Purday relies largely on graphic adventures for examples, and cites the game dialog and cutscenes interrupted by player involvement. Because of the structural similarities, games and sentimental fiction are of equal literary quality.

            The text then moves into more and more abstract literature. The next comparison is between nonlinear games and American metafiction. Purday argues that both forms of storytelling abandon linear narrative as a way to convey emotional development. In Barth’s short story “Lost in the Funhouse,” Barth constantly interrupts his own narrative and stifles his own characters’ attempts to get to a funhouse. As that story does not follow any traditional structure, so games and hypertexts need not either. Instead, the constant sense of divorce from any familiar structure instills in the reader a sense of loss and frustration – creating an emotion in the reader or player directly, rather than via a protagonist or narrator. Purday claims this shunning of traditional structure is yet another similarity games have with already accepted forms of fiction, those in the postmodernist movement.

            The author then speaks at great length about the differences between “mourning” and “melancholy.” Mourning, as used in this paper and in Freudian terms, is the process where grief is slowly worn away, returning one to a sense of normalcy and adding the experience to one’s character. Melancholy is self contained loss with no end, such as the unresolved “Lost in the Funhouse,” which never returns the reader to a normal narrative. He claims that games share this melancholy state, and follow a structure based on loss, which necessitates goal achievement and a futile attempt to remedy it.

            As Purday assumes some familiarity with story structure and digital fiction, this article would best be suited for someone with a middling understanding of both. The sections comparing gaming narratives and hypertext with literary trends were intriguing, and I would recommend this to someone interested in tying digital fiction to the rest of literary canon.

* * *

Incidentally, the word count for this post, without the works cited and paper tie-in explanation, is 483, but it goes up to 546 with the citation/explanation at the top. I hope this is okay, because this further explanation at the bottom isn't helping any. 

Metaphor Blog Entry #1

The technology I have chosen to talk about is the iPhone 4. While the commercial (shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHngLJ0RlNg&feature=channel) admits that this is only the fourth installment in a line of products, it also claims that the “iPhone 4 is so much more than just another new product. This will have a lasting impact on the way that we connect with each other” and that “this is going to change everything, all over again […] it’s going to change the way that we communicate forever.” Not only does the iPhone 4 work as a phone, but it combines every media type a person might need. It shows movies, takes pictures, does email, records and edits film, plays games, facilitates texting, functions as a book reader, and plays music.

           

            While texting and camera features are common, the thing that sets the iPhone 4 apart is its ability to meet or exceed our natural ability to communicate. The resolution is so high, claims the ad, that while using the book reader function, “it looks to your eye like you’re holding a printed page in your hand.” Video conferencing allows you to look into your children’s eyes and see how they are really doing, video editing helps create memories the way they were meant to be, and the phone will automatically and intelligently create folders for your information. To top it off, all of this life shaping software is housed in a cutting edge case of newly developed and custom engineered materials.

What makes this reality-replacing and supplementing device accessible is that “the iPhone, for the user, it is simplicity, it is easy to use; behind it, it is intense technology.” Basically, the software is advanced so that the wetware does not have to be. But the phone is still centered around the user. “The quality of the materials, the manufacturing precision, the advanced technology, ultimately all of this becomes relevant when you just hold it in your hand.” The iPhone 4 is, after all, just an extension of your body and your natural ability to communicate – even if it extends beyond what you could do on your own. You cannot upgrade yourself (yet), but you can upgrade the way you connect with other people.

            Levy would certainly see some themes found in the iPhone that fall in line with his work. One of these themes would be his emphasis on interconnectivity in the cyber age. In “The Social Movement of Cyberspace” he states that “for cyberculture, being connected is always preferable to being isolated. Connectivity is good in itself” (p. 107). The iPhone ad assumes this; at no point does the advertisement try to convince the viewer why we should want to connect with each other, just that the iPhone will allow us to be better connected than ever before. Earlier in the same work, Levy talks about how technology is becoming more and more integrated, and how software “will sooner or later adhere to a small number of international standards” (p. 93). The iPhone takes the same principle a step further: other people with iPhones can use specific features, and this universally useful device could eventually become the medium through which you experience all media and communication. Why buy a book reader or a music player when this one product encompasses everything you could possibly need? The iPhone 4 is your portal to the cyberworld.

            We need to communicate within the cyber realm, claims the ad, and the more advanced your device is to aid in this communication the better. The iPhone 4 is just a tool, but the spirit of the video is quick to remind us that our lives and relationships as humans are dependent on tools – and this phone is as essential as a pair of shoes. The manufactures at Apple act as though we already use smart phones and are welcoming us into the future where the way we communicate will be changed forever.