The topic resonating every discussion, either among old or young people: Our approach to social networks, the addiction, or its possible consequences. How much time do youngsters spend on their social media sites? What can their actions impel in the future? And could they even imagine a life without it?
During our last session of Psychology of Social Networking, we were discussing the future and the impact of a new way of psychological therapy provided by artificial intelligence. In my last blog post, I would like to express my opinion and summarize the basic pros and cons of this topic.
For me, one of the most important advantages in using AI as a therapist is the easier accessibility for way more people than it is now. Either because of the money, or, in some cases, the lack of therapists themselves. That could lead to broader coverage of psychological problems and may reduce for example the rate of depression, which could lead to decreasing suicides or self-harm. Furthermore, I think, some people may feel intimidated by talking about their private problems to another human being, therefore for them, this may be a solution as well.
On the other hand, isn’t it the human factor, which helps us overcome our troubles? Moreover, if the AI gathers the information about us only based on our internet trace, is it enough? Are we that deeply entrenched on the internet, that nothing we do in the real-life can change the image and the inner basis of ourselves?
What is more, regarding the ethical question, do we know who would possess and program this kind of therapist? Would it be owned by the governments, private companies, or individuals? How to provide objectivity and non-participation?
This topic raises more questions than answers and although it is still far in the future (if so), it would be smart to know the answers before it is too late.
In my today’s post, I would like to focus on the connection between dystopia and gradual technological development, so as in our class we were supposed to discuss, whether technological evolution and progression have any impact on the growth of dystopian societies.
As far as I can say, for me, there is almost no connection between these two concepts. Even though the technological tools may help to create such an environment, for example by the ability of watching, listening, and all and all “stalk” people within every moment of their life, I do not think it is necessary, nor important for this kind of establishment. What is fundamental while creating a dystopian society, are the people. And if somebody decides to transform the world (or the state, town, group, etc.) into something that terrible, I do not think the lack of technological equipment would stop him.
Again, because of the people. They create, they perform, they make things work. For me, the dystopian societies are not that different from, for instance, communistic and similar regimes, which ruled in some parts of Europe during the last century. And was the technology that mature as we know it today? No. But still, it was possible. Because of the people – not only government or secret police, but also neighbors, friends, or total strangers.
This interpretation is, of course, very simplified. However, in nutshell, it represents the two very significant points: the dystopian society is much closer to us than we think and secondly, you do not need any very special equipment to have control over society. People can gain this way easier, and it is fundamental for us to know this.
The first chapter from Boyd’s book, once again, gripped me and made me think about some things. I started to think about how teens and everybody living in a digital world present themselves on social media and what impact it might have. What do social media actually tell us about us? How do we look like in the eyes of our friends, our family, or some complete strangers, possibly future employers and bosses?
As Boyd points out, “The intended audience matters, regardless of the actual audience.” (p. 30) But is this something, that most of us actually realize? Me personally, I am not sure, whether I think about the impact the content of my social media might have, for example in the future, when I apply for a job. And honestly, I do not think I want to. I do not share that much; this is for sure. But if I do, I do not want to think about, what consequences it may have in like 10 years or what. I think (or at least hope), that my digital behavior is still within some rational boundaries and I do not share stuff I should be (much, haha) ashamed of. However, it is crucial to realize, that not everybody thinks like that, and it is them, who maybe should be more concerned about their social media content.
We seriously have to pay attention to this issue because once anything is on the internet, there is a very high possibility that will stay there forever. There is always a way, how to dig it up. Once again quoting Boyd: “(…) the internet has not evolved into an idyllic zone in which people are free from the limitations of the embodied world” (p. 53). Our actions have consequences, every single time.
Since we have been talking about rhizomatic learning, its pros and cons, one book I have recently read came to my mind. It is The Theory of Miseducation written by Konrad Paul Liessmann. Even though I do not agree with him every time, he has made some good points about education which I would like to share with you.
Firstly, he emphasizes, that ignorance of education is not only the absence of learning or education in general but also a kind of treatment of itching outside the sphere of the idea of education. According to Liessmann, it is the consequence of spirit capitalization.
He criticizes the European educational system because it teaches us only individual pieces of knowledge without any broader context. To call ourselves educated we need to understand chosen topic more profoundly. He compares our knowledge to a popular competition “Who wants to be a millionaire,” in which it is not important how educated you are, how much knowledge you have gained within your life, but it is basically just about guessing and inkling.
He also rejects the common argument “as long as I know, where to find concrete information, I am fine.” Because based on this approach, you, once again, only know or learn the dictionary interpretation, would not be able to have for instance a conversation about this topic or so on. He emphasizes the importance of meaning, purpose, reason, context, and understanding.
And from my point of view, if a person really wants to start educating him/herself in the way Liessmann says, rhizomatic learning is actually a very good path for it.
Reference: LIESSMANN, Konrad Paul. Teorie nevzdělanosti: omyly společnosti vědění. Praha: Academia, 2008. XXI. století. ISBN 978-80-200-1677-5. (18. 5. 2021)
First of all, I cannot 100% say, that I truly understand what rhizomatic learning is, however, I can at least try and therefore express my opinion on it. But I really need to remind that everybody who might be reading this, because I might be totally wrong.
From what I have read, for rhizomatic learning to work properly, it is fundamental not to study (or etc.) as an individual, but as a part of a certain web, of a complex of relationships, between ourselves and the rest of the world – other people but also nature, animals, signals, signs, etc. Another important point, the common studying/learning/working within a group. Be able to react, that is the key I suppose.
This all sounds nice, however, isn’t it a more idealistic and dreamy point of view? I just cannot somehow imagine, how is something like this supposed to work in a real life. For example, every time within a group project in school, it never works how it is supposed to work. There are always people working more, there are always people working less and there are always people doing nothing at all, not even trying to gain some knowledge at least. So how is kind of learning going to improve them?
Plus, if I understood correctly, there ought to be no educator to educate the students, which also rings a bell in my head. I agree with the fact, that for (for instance) children, in order to learn something, it is not necessary to have one dominant person to tell them what to do, not at all. But I still think there ought to be at least some boundaries between them. And not only between them, between the educator and the educated in general.
I do not know if this is the main point of RL and if it really works like this and if it even works in real life or is it just an idealistic thought. For me, it is really hard to say.
The book It’s complicated captured my attention right from the preface, only because of a simple sentence: “This book is just that: my attempt to describe and explain the networked lives of teens to the people who worry about them—parents, teachers, policy makers, journalists, sometimes even other teens.” (Boyd p. x). I feel like this topic is nowadays pretty underestimated and people do not pay it enough attention. Most of the latest contributions about social networking are warnings and they tell us, that nowadays kids and teens are not only addicted, but also, that it’s endangering their (our) evolution, eventually adulting. This is why I like the core idea of this book, that the author is not judgmental, but tries to understand this problem and tries to seek the profundity and origins of this phenomenon.
But from the beginning I kept asking myself. In which category would I put myself? Where do I belong? Am I a phone-addicted kid, or a judgmental adult? I see myself balancing and oscillating between these two extremes, however, I cannot be assigned to one, nor the other. Which confuses me a little bit. I still have not figured it out.
The next question, popping in my head while reading, was: Isn’t the only problem parents’ jealousy? Just because these devices were not available in their youth, does it automatically mean it’s wrong? In one example the author pointedly remarks that teens, unlike their parents, look at their phones only when they are sharing the screen with the person sitting next to them or are reading or viewing something together. (Boyd). They would have done the same if they had the opportunity.
In this world, during the last (and consequent) decades, it is (and it will be) almost unmanageable to function without any device, nor social network. It is possible, but it definitely is not easy. Like the author claims, the teens only “want to be a part of the broader world by connecting with other people and having the freedom of mobility” (Boyd p. 10), and “they don’t try to analyse how things are different because of technology; they simply try to relate to a public world in which technology is a given.” (Boyd p. 13).
All in all, my message is to try not to judge the young generation for spending time on their phones, having apps like Instagram or TikTok, chatting with friends. Especially (but not only) within these corona days, it may be the only way for them, to stay connected with the world.
The evolution of the internet, its spread, influence on our lives, my point of view.
We all know the process. The Arpanet, expansion of personal computers, the beginning of the world wide web, the foundation of Wikipedia, or personal blogging. I, for example, have been familiarized with these terms for quite a time. However, somehow have I never seen them all together. As a whole, as one unit. Unit indicating the process of internet development. This timeline. And what’s more, it all appeared only within the past thirty-two years.
32. This is the age when people are prone to have a middle-age crisis, their first babies nowadays, the life begins for many of them. It is not that much. It’s nothing. And during this time (of the size of a little fracture of a person’s life), the internet and everything connected to it, has made an enormous step. Life was SO different back then. Weirdly, not such a long time ago.
This awareness overwhelmed me for a while. Because if that many staff changed and happened only within thirty-two years, what should we expect in the future? Is there any space, where can the internet even expand anymore? Everything is spinning faster and faster nowadays. Are we its next targets?
Even now we are the victims of the personalized context. How much further can it go? Is this only the beginning? I do not know what to expect, that’s the scariest part. When the Arpanet began, no one could have awaited something like blogging. When the blogging began, who could have seen Facebook coming? I have too many questions but no answers.
The only thing I am aware of right now is, that I cannot predict anything.
And that scares me.
The first session. How do I feel about this course?
To be frank with you, I am still not sure. However, the Psychology of Social Networking looks promising. Firstly, it’s due to the combination of theoretical and practical work. And secondly, it is fascinating to be able to work with people from so many different countries and cultural backgrounds. It always widens your point of view and according to my opinion, this is what school, no matter whether a high or a university, ought to be about.
What do I expect? What do I want this course to be about? What do I dream to learn here?
As I said in our first meeting, I would probably like to gain some more profound knowledge about how our brains, affected by social media and all the buzz, work. What is different now. How is it going to affect us in the future. As it was mentioned at the meeting – for instance, the possibilities of our brain to adapt to the quick changes, the new communication patterns, how do we cope with manipulation, etc., etc.
Additionally, maybe to have some basic neuroscience knowledge. Because from my point of view, it’s also really crucial to know about the mechanism itself, not only the results and the way it affects us.
This connects with the question already asked on our first meeting: “How our brains are different from the brains of our ancestors?”, as we can view it from (at least) two different perspectives. The first – the one I mentioned above – how the brains changed within the time, what happened inside us, how it affects us, you know, the scientific view. And the second – what social (and many others) consequences it has.
For me, these are fundamental questions we have to keep asking ourselves in order to understand each other, us, and the world as a whole.