I've always considered myself (well at least I've been told) that I'm left-brained - I decided to take a quiz online today just to see how dominate that is in me. I love words, planning, making lists, and organizing...
Here are my results...
<
| ||||||||||
Saturday, April 9, 2011
The left brain dominance in me...
Last night I attended the TEDx conference at Rutgers. Besides being interesting I also learned a lot and I wanted to revisit the idea of left brain versus right brain.
I've always considered myself (well at least I've been told) that I'm left-brained - I decided to take a quiz online today just to see how dominate that is in me. I love words, planning, making lists, and organizing...
Here are my results...
<
I've always considered myself (well at least I've been told) that I'm left-brained - I decided to take a quiz online today just to see how dominate that is in me. I love words, planning, making lists, and organizing...
Here are my results...
<
(15)
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Facebook and user motivations...
Well I'm nearing the end of my Masters Degree! (wahoo!)
This means that it's time for me to conduct my final research project and get to work on collecting real data to analyze.
The project I'm working on is in regards to Facebook. More specifically how does Facebook use impact our "digital activism" (although I'm much prefer the term "slacktivism")?
You know, those silly little status updates telling you to change your status or profile picture to support a cause or to raise awareness. Are people who are more active on Facebook more likely to participate in such things???
Take my survey - help me out. pass it on to your friends.
Facebook survey!
thank you!
This means that it's time for me to conduct my final research project and get to work on collecting real data to analyze.
The project I'm working on is in regards to Facebook. More specifically how does Facebook use impact our "digital activism" (although I'm much prefer the term "slacktivism")?
You know, those silly little status updates telling you to change your status or profile picture to support a cause or to raise awareness. Are people who are more active on Facebook more likely to participate in such things???
Take my survey - help me out. pass it on to your friends.
Facebook survey!
thank you!
Saturday, November 13, 2010
revealing our secrets...
A large aspect of multitasking (and computer mediated communication (CMC) [1]in general) is the effect it potentially can have on the depth of the communication. Is it possible for someone to have a deep conversation with another person via text messaging? Does the breadth and depth of communication messages reach a plateau when a person is multitasking? Or does CMC actually assist in the revealing of deeply personal information due to the lack of face to face interaction?
In a recent interview with Kevin Benson (Adjunct Faculty at Whitworth University and Manager of the Center for Faith and Healing at Sacred Heart Medical Center) he states:
“I do think that our generation (Millenials, or Gen Y - whatever you want to call me and you) are actually quite good at multi-channel communications. We can text, e-mail, have a face to face conversation. The issue isn't ability to communicate; it's about the DEPTH of communication. I can text, chat, e-mail, and post on your FB wall, but am I using the same abilities to do that as I would be when I'm sitting face to face and engaging my brain and my emotions? Probably not.”
I agree – I think it is about the depth of communication as well. Sure texting, emailing, chatting etc. are all really efficient tools for getting tasks accomplished and saving time with menial details, however, it can be difficult to convey feelings and emotions through mediated channels.” [2]
This idea of depth and breadth in communication isn’t a new one. Scholars have been studying the human potential for communicating personal things (depth) and the array of communication (breadth) for decades. However, the impact of computer mediated communication, especially in terms of multitasking, has yet to be thoroughly addressed.
A few researchers have started investigating the effects and have come up with differing conclusions. One researcher, Brian Spitzberg, has actually found that individuals are more likely to reveal personal, deep information via text messaging and email. The lack of face to face communication appears to allow some individuals the freedom to communicate difficult subjects. In one study “about one-third of people believe it is easier to disclose “frank and unpleasant” things through email (Pew, 2000), which was generally viewed as an important benefit for openness in family and friend relationships.” [3]
A good example of this personal releasing of information without a face to face format is the website called “Post Secret” [4]. In this website people send a post card (so no CMC here) to an individual who has been scanning the postcards and posting them online to a website. The postcards contain secrets that individuals from all over the world submit. The secrets are highly personal and it appears to show that some individuals are more likely to reveal deeply personal information if they do not know the individual and also if they do not have a face to face interaction with them. While this website does not deal directly with multitasking, it does deal with the notion of depth of communication and the lack of face to face communication.
The next question is if adding several channels to communicating at once has a different effect. Can we reveal deep information to more than one person at a time? I agree with Benson, in that although we are skilled in our multitasking of communication, skilled doesn’t necessarily mean a depth and breadth of communication. It will be interesting to see research evolving from this intertwining of CMC, multitasking, and depth/breadth of communication.
[2] Personal interview October 28, 2010
[3] (1998). Communication competence: Measures of perceived effectiveness. In C. H.Tardy (Ed.), Handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and instruments for observing, measuring, and assessing communication processes(pp. 67–105). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Your brain on apps.
Can multitasking make us smarter?
Paul Saffo, managing director for Discern Analytics, a Silicon Valley forecasting firm, says “there's a case to be made that the Internet is helping to make individuals smarter. There have been studies showing that not just Web searches but also video games are good at stimulating and strengthening parts of the brain.[1]”
Some new studies point to the idea that multitasking isn’t making us dumber it’s just changing the way we think. We have shifted our standards for accessing and presenting resources. But how can we tell if this new form of thinking and multitasking is for the better or for the worse? And should we be that concerned[2]
An article by the Christian Science Monitor implores us with the question “Is technology making us dumb and distracted or turning us into expert information finders and magnificent multitaskers? Is being connected online 24/7 good or bad? Is there even a good way to tell?[3]”
Perhaps this new way of thinking is better. We can know load our brains with much more information all of the time. Remember back in the day when our memories were full of phone numbers, directions, people’s names, store hours etc.? Well we no longer have to maintain that capacity. We have smartphones that can store that information for us freeing up space and time. At the click of a button we can find information on almost anything all while watching TV or speaking with a friend. You can even download iphone apps that help “organize your brain[4]”.
I recently was sitting in class when our professor was discussing a book but couldn’t remember the name of the author. Almost all of the students in the class had their laptops flipped open and within seconds someone had re-informed him of the name he’d forgotten. Was that student thought less of because he was researching something while the professor was talking? I don’t think so. The professor was grateful to have been told the author’s name that he’d forgotten and we quickly moved onto the next topic.
One of the most (or only) noticeable benefits of multitasking is our ability to access information quickly and anywhere doing anything. We are capable of tapping into large amounts of information while sitting in class, watching TV, or having dinner…
That being said, while I was researching the benefits of multitasking, almost every article I came across ended with cautions and warnings about the negative effects of multitasking. It nearly impossible to find a recent article focused on how multitasking has made us smarter or more effective. Most researchers find that multitasking actually does split our attention so much that we are facing more difficulties accomplishing anything with effectiveness…so maybe our brain overfed on apps isn't always good.
The only viable benefit of multitasking I could decipher was our access to a broader wealth information… but I’ll leave you with a quote from Herbert A. Simon (Nobel Prize winner) about that:
“What information consumes is rather obvious: It consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it.”
So the benefits of multitasking… very few. I tried.
[3] Lamb, G. (2010, July 24). Are iPads, smartphones, and the Mobile Web rewiring the way we think?.Christian Science Monitor, p. N.PAG. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Becoming 21st century goldfish
The decline of attention spans.
I’d say no. I’m sure that my Grandparents had no trouble with not having a smartphone and ipad to keep them busy. In fact, I remember sitting for hours with my Grandma when I was little and she would watch The Lawrence Welk Show[1] every single Saturday night. My husband and I recently watched an episode of Lawrence Welk just so he could see what I “suffered” through on those Saturday nights being babysat by Grandma.
When we watched the show recently we were amazed at how long the scene shots were. There were long periods of the same shot (a minute or longer). No angle changes, no camera changes – just the same shot. The average shot length (ASL) now is typically around 4-5 seconds in length[2]. The screen is constantly changing scenes, shots, people, music etc. We bounce from one media stimulation to the next.
As Kelton Cobb states in his book Theology and Popular Culture, “it [TV] flattens out the momentous and the trivial. In one weekend of television viewing, one can see more drama, human tragedy, comedy, feats of spectacular achievement, and sexual escapades than most of our ancestors would have seen in a year or even their lifetimes. And these highs and lows flow out of the set in a steady stream, interrupted only by ad pitches to buy the sponsor’s products” (p. 38).
While some argue that TV is one of the main culprits for shortening our attention spans; others argue that it is the Internet.
While some argue that TV is one of the main culprits for shortening our attention spans; others argue that it is the Internet.
In 2002, BBC published an article about the impact of the digital age on our attention spans[3]. Researchers found that even if a website is engaging “most online viewers spend less than 60 seconds at an average site”. There is so much information and media available that users don’t know when to stop searching. We have a tendency to just keep bouncing from website to website and from link to link gathering more information. The article also argues that the web has helped decrease our attention span so much that it can now dip down to only 9 seconds.
9 seconds until we move onto the next thing, the next link, the next page, the next blog, the next news story…. There is always a next in the information age. It is important to point out that goldfish have an attention span of 9 seconds. Yes, Goldfish. Have we become as attention deficit as goldfish?So maybe it isn’t all bad though. Maybe we are becoming super-humans with the ability to research (or “google”) anything. We have the world at our finger tips. Are we less just for having the shorter attention spans that go with it? Perhaps we’ll delve into the more positive side of multi tasking in the next post….
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The "flat affect" of digital communication
I thought it worth discussing the generational effects of communication multitasking and how it may be affecting other aspects of daily life. In a recent article by Camille Paglia, she discusses how Lady Gaga’s fans don’t need someone who is real and expressional. Her fans, or her “little monsters” are used to a flat affect. They are so interwoven into a life of texting, emailing, and chatting that perhaps they’ve forgotten (or maybe have never even known) what face to face communication can look like.
As she states “Gaga’s flat affect doesn’t bother them because they’re not attuned to facial expressions. Gaga's fans are marooned in a global technocracy of fancy gadgets but emotional poverty. Borderlines have been blurred between public and private: reality TV shows multiply, cell phone conversations blare everywhere; secrets are heedlessly blabbed on Facebook and Twitter. Hence, Gaga gratuitously natters on about her vagina…” [1]
So is this the case for tweens and teens… Are they so wound up in their digital communication devices that they are so far removed from face to face communication that a fake, plastic performer is just as good? Is this a generation of people who’s emotions are visible only through emoticons and “LOL’s”? And what has led to this?
Paglia points out that the population of Gaga monsters are “marooned” in technology leaving a desperate void of emotions. The information overload points to an inability to process the important. Emotions, sex, and intimate feelings are blasted through every medium possible toning down the importance of such things. Multitasking appears to be assisting in desensitizing humanness.
Much research has been done on the effects of viewing violence through media and how it can desensitize people towards violent acts [2].
However, what about media as a whole? Is our obsession with consuming media 24 hours a day through an array of multifaceted channels causing us to become desensitized?
In a Psychology Today article, the author points out that she puts her kids on a “media diet” each school year which includes no TV during the week. Imagine if a typical American 16 year old was weaned off TV for a week – it could crash a social life! [3]
The Zur Institute points out ‘Spending countless hours a day, everyday, on the Internet or in online gaming can interfere with young people's emotional, physical, intellectual and spiritual development.”[4] Digital age Natives (as the media addicted generation is called) are potentially hampering their ability to engage in face to face discussion, express themselves emotionally (other than on a handheld device of sorts), or interact with friends on a deeper level.
How many times have we witnessed someone texting someone who is within vocal range. I myself am guilty – 2 years ago I had a neighbor who was a good friend of mine – she lived right next door, but sometimes it was just easier; more convenient to text her. Are we losing our ability to communicate in full phrases? Have shorthand text messaging and emails become the norm?
Friday, October 15, 2010
A generation of "poor performers..." ?
· In 1999, only 16 percent of the time people spent using any media was spent on multiple media at once; by 2005, 26 percent of media time was spent multitasking. (a 2006 report from the Kaiser Family Foundation).
· According to the Generation M study, about 15% of 7th–12th graders say they use another medium “most of the time” they’re using at least three out of the four media in the study (TV, reading, videogames, and computers). These are considered “heavy” media multitaskers (http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/7593.pdf)
· Today’s 8-18 year old age group is so good at multitasking using media that they are able to actually pack a total of 10 hours and 45 minutes worth of media content into 7½ hours.
I’d like to take a step back and revisit the original inspiration for this blog, the June 11th, 2010 story on NPR titled Does Multitasking Lead To A More Productive Brain? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127771658
In this show the host, Ira Flatow, interviews two experts on the concept, Clifford Nass a professor of Communications at Standford University; and ADAM GAZZALEY the Director of the Neuroscience Imaging Center, University of California, San Francisco.
The pose the question “Does multitasking lead to a more productive brain”? In response to this question Dr. Gazzaley points out that “it's becoming increasingly viewed that our brains are not highly adapted for multiple streams of information at the same time but rather focusing at a particular direction.” He goes on to say that when we multitask we have to “switch” in our brains as well “and with each switch, there's a cost, a cost in performance that occurs”
Professor Nass even goes on to say that with studies on multitasking, the people who think they multitask the best are actually the worst at it.
One of the biggest concerns the show brought up was that upcoming generations; tweens, teens, and 20’s, have all been raised multitasking. The growing concern is that there is not long term data to show what this means for people. Are people of younger generations developing a different cognitive learning pattern? Is it for the better or the worse?
Based on Dr. Gazzaley’s reflection on multitasking causing poor performance, I’m tempted to state that “yes, of course! And it’s affecting our communication!”
But I’m not so sure it is.
I’m a multitasker and I certainly don’t want to admit that I’m performing poorly texting a friend while listening to another friend’s story. But maybe I am.
The brain is a complex instrument and being raised to multitasking is perhaps a good brain development activity. Maybe we are learning to stretch our brains in new ways. Or maybe we are raising an entire generation or people who have a poor attention span and performance record.
As Professor Nass states, “it seems that the developmental implications are very worrisome. As I said, the children, we look at college students primarily, although we're expanding to many other populations, students who have had a great deal of multitasking in their younger lives, and what we're seeing is, again, the ones who do it more lose some fundamental abilities”
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)