The beginning of this book discusses some of the examples of how consumer products have to constantly be updated, re-vamped and made to meet to the standards of the constant emerging culture of the American people. This is called technological, psychological, progressive and dynamic obsolescence. According to Giles Slade, author of the book, "All of these terms refer to the mechanism of changing product style as a way to manipulate consumers into repetitive buying," (Slade 5). He goes on to discuss the idea that all products eventually become worn, stressed, old, out-dated and simply boring. In order to feed consumers wants and desires, manufacturers of these thousands of products will do anything in order to keep their customers coming back for more. Manufacturers have come up with marketing strategies in order to promote repetitive buying and consumption. For example, "from branding, packaging, and creating disposable products to continuously changing the styles of nondisposable products so that they became psychologically obsolete" (11) were the main strategies used to promote consumerism since the nineteenth century. Disposable razors and tampons were just some of the products that began this phenomenon.
Another way manufacturers kept up with obsolescence was through the process of updating the automobile. For example, in the 1920's, Ford Company and General Motors battled against each other to see who could make the most money by selling the most cars. It seemed that the only way to do this was to keep updating their automobiles to keep car shoppers interested. They wanted to keep people coming back to the dealerships for the most up-to-date, stylish, yet affordable car. Henry Ford (inventor of the Model-T) was opposed to this obsolescence strategy and he eventually had to get rid of the rusty, old, outdated Model-T. He has to "get with the program" as they say, of style over functionality in order to maintain his business and keep his sales up. "Psychological obsolescence was now the rule for U.S. automakers. And because car production was America's flagship industry, this lesson was quickly copied in all other areas of manufacturing," (47). So not only were cars an important aspect of this "new is better" phenomenon, but most other items that consumers bought were also forced to be the newest and most updated.
Slade then goes on to discuss the manufacturing of goods and product addiction. He discusses the idea that products are made in order for people to collect and own (like Barbie dolls and baseball cards), which ultimately put people at risk for product addiction. Slade mentions that it is a self-conscious concern that we have to be up to date with the latest fashions and models, which defines this psychological obsolescence. This was a new mentality that people had to adapt to, especially in the 1920's and during the Great Depression era. During this time, a man by the name of J. George Frederick became famous for inventing progressive obsolescence (58). His principle focused on means for buying efficient and stylish products that were up-to-date rather than using something until its last resort. His wife Christine also became famous for identifying the buying habits of women during this time and how important it was for women to have the most stylish and new items above and beyond any other reason for purchasing things. "In their everyday lives, ordinary people were becoming familiar with the need to discard not just consumer goods but ideas and habits that had suddenly became obsolete," (62). Her ideas revolved around the psychological effects that progressive obsolescence had on people during this time.
Planned obsolescence, in my opinion, is just a business strategy that has been around for almost a century now. Businesses and manufacturers are constantly trying to come up with new ways and ideas to keep the consumer happy. Obsolescence is a way to keep consumers psychologically happy because if it's not new, then who would want it? Although I know a lot of people who use the crap out of things and refuse to by new things (i.e. my dad has had the same cell phone now for 7 years), I believe it does make a person feel better about themselves to have the newest and latest trends, fashions and technology. Along with a psychological effect, obsolescence has a lot to with the economy and technology. Since we have become so reliant on the latest technologies, we are more prone to obsolescence. Phone, computer and television companies are always catching onto the latest technological advancements being developed. These companies will continue to keep up with technology in order to satisfy their consumers and to keep their businesses going into the future. We as consumers have to have to latest cell phone and television in order to experience these latest technological developments. Sure, anyone can still pull their old TV out of the basement cellar, plug it in and watch basic cable, but why should they when there is a High Definition, plasma or LCD screen television just waiting to be bought down the road on a shelf at Wal-Mart? The reason we buy new things is to keep up with the fast-paced consumer world. For example, phone companies (like Verizon) have startegically planned a 2-year activation agreement with all of their customers because they know that within 2 years, most people will want a new phone. So basically, a Verizon customer is forced to purchase a new phone and extend their account with them in order to keep Verizon's service. It's funny too how 2 years is too long sometimes and some people have to have a new phone every year or even less. It's plans and strategies like these that businesses strive to promote because they know that consumers will have to upgrade. The lifespan of any product nowadays is shorter than ever. It's inevitable that we as consumers always have to have the "next best thing."
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Wikipedia - Part Two
Wikipedia, the biggest encyclopedia in human history, is a popular source mainly because people all over the world, scholars and students alike, love to contribute and interact. Whether it's a question of "French toast" or "German toast," or whether the Fig Newton cookie is really named after the town Newton, Massachusetts (118), people will not hesitate to add, delete or edit information that goes onto Wikipedia's site. It is also a form of social networking that allows unlimited interaction of Wikipedia users worldwide. "We love it because it's a virtual nation, or rather a virtual world," (120). This interaction can be good and bad though. Some people who are genuinely intelligent and can write an article based on facts can be criticized by others, which undermines their intelligence and eventually their ego. For example, a woman known as JHK left Wikipedia because she felt that people did not respect the information in her articles because they were considered bias. She also felt that there was a lack of community within Wikipedia, which left her disheartened and "socially" isolated (127). This ultimately leads to another reason why people love Wikipedia: edit warring. People love to edit, a lot, which is why Wikipedia had to set a "Three changes per 24 hours" editing rule. Also, there is no size limit to what one can write in Wikipedia. Space is unlimited. The fifth reason we love Wikipedia is because we can be whoever we want to be as a user. From elite professors to average school kids, we can say that we are someone, when we are actually someone else. Who will ever really know except yourself? Ah the virtual world. In cyberspace, people can write what they want about anything, including themselves. Wikipedia is obliged to people writing and editing facts about themselves, yet people do it anyway. For example, in 2005, Joshua Gardner 'pretended' that he was Duke of Cleveland, which obvisouly didn't work out in the end because it was clearly a false identity (148). The editors of Wikipedia (whoever they may really be) would not allow him to put content up on the site (especially false content) about himself. "The worst thing to do is to edit yourself anonymously," (149). There is to be no autobiographies created on Wikipedia then.
With many controversial issues concerning Wikipedia, it is clear that it is not the most accurate and reliable source. According to Dalby, "The official, openly-stated view of Wikipedia is that it's a work in progress. It isn't a reliable source and shouldn't be cited as if it were," (191). This, I believe, is most certainly true. There are way too many people with way too many opinions out there that can constantly argue and edit the pages that are known as Wikipedia. Yes, it is a very easy site to access thanks to Google, and it is very tempting to believe everything that is stated on the website. Yet after reading this book, we must question the validity of the information before we use it in our reasearch. Only true and honest research is worth doing and analyzing, therefore Wikipedia should not be a source through which all research is found. Granted, most of the information is true, but not entirely. That's like a teacher saying "It's okay to plagiarize some of your paper, but not all of it." It just doesn't cut it in the research field. If people are solely reliant on Wikipedia for information, they are definitely misinformed and will ultimately be doomed to falsehood. Although Wikipedia is a fascinating tool, it should not be used to build the entire house.
With many controversial issues concerning Wikipedia, it is clear that it is not the most accurate and reliable source. According to Dalby, "The official, openly-stated view of Wikipedia is that it's a work in progress. It isn't a reliable source and shouldn't be cited as if it were," (191). This, I believe, is most certainly true. There are way too many people with way too many opinions out there that can constantly argue and edit the pages that are known as Wikipedia. Yes, it is a very easy site to access thanks to Google, and it is very tempting to believe everything that is stated on the website. Yet after reading this book, we must question the validity of the information before we use it in our reasearch. Only true and honest research is worth doing and analyzing, therefore Wikipedia should not be a source through which all research is found. Granted, most of the information is true, but not entirely. That's like a teacher saying "It's okay to plagiarize some of your paper, but not all of it." It just doesn't cut it in the research field. If people are solely reliant on Wikipedia for information, they are definitely misinformed and will ultimately be doomed to falsehood. Although Wikipedia is a fascinating tool, it should not be used to build the entire house.
Wikipedia - Part One
Wikipedia is currently our generation's main reference for information on anything and everything. It has become the new form of the Encyclopedia and the use of actual encyclopedia books is almost non-existent. The need for knowledge and information has always been around. Books and manuscripts have told us so many interesting facts and have provided us with so much information about so many different things. As we look as history, we see that even the earliest forms of organized and logical information were made available to anyone who could read. Andrew Dalby's book,"The World and Wikipedia," discusses that the first person to establish a "full circle of knowledge" (20) was Pliny the Elder, who scribbled notes and took in information from books that he read throughout most of his lifetime. He was essentially the first one to create an encyclopaedia, which generated a wealth of information to readers everywhere. He used this term, encyclopaedia, as a way "to explain his purpose, which was to offer a full circle of learning, a complete system of knowledge laid out in a logical pattern," (21). His successors were also significant because they added great amounts of information and logistics to the wealth of knowledge that was being formed, including facts about law, science, archeology, art and so forth. The three main books that were used to eventually establish Wikipedia were the encyclopdeia, the dictionary and the sourcebook. This eventually led to the Britannica Encyclopedia, first as a collection of books, then to CD-ROM, which could be used on computers.
The problem lies in the updates of information. Everyday, events occurs marking a moment in time where something should be recorded. History happens everyday, so how is a CD or a book able to keep up-to-date information readily available? They're not. Then came the introduction to The Wikipedia, the world's first online encyclopedia databse, where thousands of articles could be submitted and revised for everyone's viewing. This website was also open to the public for anyone's input, editing and information. The website grew so quickly that between its launch in January 2001 and March 2009, Wikipedia reached over 2,800,000 articles (39). Wikipedia also developed millions of articles in over 250 different languages (42). "An encyclopedia that is actively growing in nearly all these languages ia an unprecedented and matchless resource for the multilingual world in which we live, a resoucre that no one in the world would have dreamed of until, about ten years ago, Jimmy Wales dreamed of it," (49).
The question is then about quality, not quantity. One of the best and worst features of Wikipedia is that anyone is able to go on and add, edit or delete information, which raises the question: How accurate is the information on Wikipedia? "It differed from conventional encyclopedias, however, in that each page was a work in progress," (52), which proves that the never-ending information will constantly be edited and revised and updated again and again. For example, the Seigenthaler case described in Dalby's book is a classic example of how Wikipedia can be toyed with and false information can easily be added and posted for readers to believe. Uncredited information and vandalism are significant ways that Wikipedia is arguably unreliable. There is also the argument on the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) as discussed by Dalby, and how exactly a "point of view" is neutral when it is obvisouly someone's view. "Individually, however, it's hard for an editor (or anyone else) to distinguish correctly between 'my viewpoint' and 'a neutral viewpoint'," (79). Wikipedia tried to maintain having a NPOV within their articles, yet it seems merely impossible to do so because everyone has their own opinions. If Wikipedia allows anyone and everyone to input information, there is always going to be people who are left-winged, right-winged and everywhere in between putting their two sense into an article, which ultimately makes an article bias.
Although Wikipedia's sources and credits may not be 100% reliable, it still encountered the "Google effct," which helped Google and Wikipedia's popularity. Wikipedia is usually the first website that Google suggests as a reliant source for anything you search. It's always at the top of the list of webpages. According to Dalby, "Favouring Wikipedia was the simplest way to ensure that the average Google results page would looks useful," (86). Since this is the case, we as web surfers are almost always going to click on the first website that Google reccomends because that website will have the most abundant and accurate information...or so we think. But why wouldn't we use Wikipedia? It is free after all. There is no annoying advertising. There are no "free trials" or subscriptions. It is just there, full of (unreliable, opinionated) information and ready for our access. So although we tend to use Wikipedia more than we should, we have to ask ourselves whether or not the information can be legitimately used for academic research and whether or not we should go back to using a more reliable source of information, like, hmmm....encyclopedia books? This generation? Yea right.
The problem lies in the updates of information. Everyday, events occurs marking a moment in time where something should be recorded. History happens everyday, so how is a CD or a book able to keep up-to-date information readily available? They're not. Then came the introduction to The Wikipedia, the world's first online encyclopedia databse, where thousands of articles could be submitted and revised for everyone's viewing. This website was also open to the public for anyone's input, editing and information. The website grew so quickly that between its launch in January 2001 and March 2009, Wikipedia reached over 2,800,000 articles (39). Wikipedia also developed millions of articles in over 250 different languages (42). "An encyclopedia that is actively growing in nearly all these languages ia an unprecedented and matchless resource for the multilingual world in which we live, a resoucre that no one in the world would have dreamed of until, about ten years ago, Jimmy Wales dreamed of it," (49).
The question is then about quality, not quantity. One of the best and worst features of Wikipedia is that anyone is able to go on and add, edit or delete information, which raises the question: How accurate is the information on Wikipedia? "It differed from conventional encyclopedias, however, in that each page was a work in progress," (52), which proves that the never-ending information will constantly be edited and revised and updated again and again. For example, the Seigenthaler case described in Dalby's book is a classic example of how Wikipedia can be toyed with and false information can easily be added and posted for readers to believe. Uncredited information and vandalism are significant ways that Wikipedia is arguably unreliable. There is also the argument on the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) as discussed by Dalby, and how exactly a "point of view" is neutral when it is obvisouly someone's view. "Individually, however, it's hard for an editor (or anyone else) to distinguish correctly between 'my viewpoint' and 'a neutral viewpoint'," (79). Wikipedia tried to maintain having a NPOV within their articles, yet it seems merely impossible to do so because everyone has their own opinions. If Wikipedia allows anyone and everyone to input information, there is always going to be people who are left-winged, right-winged and everywhere in between putting their two sense into an article, which ultimately makes an article bias.
Although Wikipedia's sources and credits may not be 100% reliable, it still encountered the "Google effct," which helped Google and Wikipedia's popularity. Wikipedia is usually the first website that Google suggests as a reliant source for anything you search. It's always at the top of the list of webpages. According to Dalby, "Favouring Wikipedia was the simplest way to ensure that the average Google results page would looks useful," (86). Since this is the case, we as web surfers are almost always going to click on the first website that Google reccomends because that website will have the most abundant and accurate information...or so we think. But why wouldn't we use Wikipedia? It is free after all. There is no annoying advertising. There are no "free trials" or subscriptions. It is just there, full of (unreliable, opinionated) information and ready for our access. So although we tend to use Wikipedia more than we should, we have to ask ourselves whether or not the information can be legitimately used for academic research and whether or not we should go back to using a more reliable source of information, like, hmmm....encyclopedia books? This generation? Yea right.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Social Network and the Revolution of Communication
So the other night I went and saw the movie "The Social Network," the film about the creation of the worldwide social-networking phenomenon, Facebook. The movie started off with a late night conversation between Mark Zuckerberg and his girlfriend at the time, Erica Albright. After the fact that she broke up with him, he goes into his dorm room and starts establishing Facemash on his computer. This is a program where people can log on and rate girls and their hotness. He also manages to bash his now ex-girlfriend publicly on his blog, which ultimately keeps her out of the picture. Nevertheless, he eventually meets up with a few guys who have an idea to create a social networking site where people can communicate through one website. Mark (the genius computer programmer he is) takes this idea into his own hands and after some odd days sitting behind his computer, he eventually creates what we know now as Facebook. Within hours, he has thousands of people logging on and connecting to the site and becoming "friends." After a couple legal battles and business hook-ups with people like Sean Parker (inventor of the free music downloading website Napster), Mark becomes the youngest billion in history. So much for going to school and getting a degree to make money.
So after watching this film, it is interesting to realize how Facebook was created and how far it has come since it was first made public to the world. After 6 or 7 years, I have come to realize that Facebook is an important part of our lives and our generation, just like the invention of the TV and microwave were so many many generations ago. For most of us, it is a daily routine to log on to our computers and check our Facebook page for updates, tags in photos and just to see what people are doing. Since when did it become so interesting to know what people are doing? That's my question. Yet, it is still necessary for me to scroll down the entire page to look at what Joe Schmoe from Idaho did exactly 23 minutes ago, or what he will be doing with his day. After I log off, I realize I have no idea what I am doing because I just wasted 2 hours on Facebook. It really is eerily addicting, like a drug. People do it everyday (3-5 times a day on average according to the Blogger poll) and when we do not have access to it for some time, or just can't get to a computer for while, most people will check their Facebook before anything else as soon as they can to fulfill their addiction and need to log onto it.
Mark Zuckerberg is a genius. His computer programming skills and his intuition combined have created the most popular webpage in the world and that is something crazy! He has literally changed our generation and the way we live our lives. How can one person be solely responsible for this type of radical change in communication? He has revolutionized the way people connect to one another. He has made it possible for one person to know basically everything about another person without ever talking to them. The idea that you actually have to talk to someone to find out who they are and what they like is becoming obsolete. Although I'm not so sure this is the best thing to happen to a worldwide population, I can say that Facebook sure is the most popular way to communicate nowadays. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to check my Facebook. Thank you Mark Zuckerberg.
So after watching this film, it is interesting to realize how Facebook was created and how far it has come since it was first made public to the world. After 6 or 7 years, I have come to realize that Facebook is an important part of our lives and our generation, just like the invention of the TV and microwave were so many many generations ago. For most of us, it is a daily routine to log on to our computers and check our Facebook page for updates, tags in photos and just to see what people are doing. Since when did it become so interesting to know what people are doing? That's my question. Yet, it is still necessary for me to scroll down the entire page to look at what Joe Schmoe from Idaho did exactly 23 minutes ago, or what he will be doing with his day. After I log off, I realize I have no idea what I am doing because I just wasted 2 hours on Facebook. It really is eerily addicting, like a drug. People do it everyday (3-5 times a day on average according to the Blogger poll) and when we do not have access to it for some time, or just can't get to a computer for while, most people will check their Facebook before anything else as soon as they can to fulfill their addiction and need to log onto it.
Mark Zuckerberg is a genius. His computer programming skills and his intuition combined have created the most popular webpage in the world and that is something crazy! He has literally changed our generation and the way we live our lives. How can one person be solely responsible for this type of radical change in communication? He has revolutionized the way people connect to one another. He has made it possible for one person to know basically everything about another person without ever talking to them. The idea that you actually have to talk to someone to find out who they are and what they like is becoming obsolete. Although I'm not so sure this is the best thing to happen to a worldwide population, I can say that Facebook sure is the most popular way to communicate nowadays. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to check my Facebook. Thank you Mark Zuckerberg.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
"Back to the Basics" (Technopoly pgs. 91-199)
Neil Postman's theories about the way technology and culture collide and coexist together seem to put into perspective the significance of how technology really does affect our culture (in a good way, but also in a bad way). Medical technology, for example, has come such a long way since the invention of the stethoscope. Medicine relies on technology because machines are inevitably more reliable in diagnosing a problem with a human condition than a human is. "Machines eliminate complexity, doubt, and ambiguity," (93). The human mind is constantly at war with these emotions, which ultimately limit our power of knowing the true medical facts and outcomes about a patient. "What the patient knows is untrustworthy; what the machine knows is reliable," (100). Therefore, according to Postman, medicine has always relied on technology, and it seems that it always will.
Postman also brings up the point of how technology affects the human experience. "The computer claims sovereignty over the whole range of human experience, and supports its claim by showing that it 'thinks' better than we can," (111). Is this true? Can computers really "think" better than we can. Some may say so, but without the intellect of the human mind, computers would have never existed inthe first place. Postman uses the metaphor of human as machines and machines as humans (117) to signify the fact we use the same terminology for the human sickness as we do for the computer "sickness." When we say our computer has a "virus," we are ultimately using a human medical term to describe a malfunction of a computer. This, according to Postman, has serious limitations.
The hidden technologies of our world, such as language, also effects us culturally. Language is essentially who we are. It gives us an indentity as individuals and defines where we are located and how we exist with other people in a socially and culturually changing world. Postman says it is an important factor when considering the effects of technology. "Because it comes from inside us, we believe it to be a direct, unedited, unbiased, apolitical expression of how the world really is," (125). He relates to actual machines, which are outside of us, tangeable and modifiable. He is saying that language is a hidden technology that cannot be screwed with, while computers and machines can constantly be modified to fit the needs of the human race.
From medical machines, to the importance of language; from how a question is answered, to the facts about scientism and the world of Technopoly, Postman brings his argument to a close by stating that we need to go 'back to the basics' in order to achieve a future of success and development within the world. The importance of artistic expression and the significance of history all play a role in how we develop and think about the world. We as humans must dust off our books, step away from the computer screen and really consider what is going on in the world without being attached to a machine that is (according to myself) not really more intelligent than the human mind. I agree with Postman's theories and ideas because he is calculating (no pun intended) the methods of how technology is a positive and negative factor within our world. It has done so much good for us, yet has taken away the essence of the natural world and put all of us into cyberspace and virtual realities. We are so dependent upon the technologies that have been generated over the years. Every profession, except for perhaps teachers, are now 100% relying on computers and machines to get the job done. I exclude teachers because they are the educators of the world, and without education, the other careers don't have a chance. It is amazing to realize the scope of how technology has affected us and where it will possibly go in the next 100 years.
Postman also brings up the point of how technology affects the human experience. "The computer claims sovereignty over the whole range of human experience, and supports its claim by showing that it 'thinks' better than we can," (111). Is this true? Can computers really "think" better than we can. Some may say so, but without the intellect of the human mind, computers would have never existed inthe first place. Postman uses the metaphor of human as machines and machines as humans (117) to signify the fact we use the same terminology for the human sickness as we do for the computer "sickness." When we say our computer has a "virus," we are ultimately using a human medical term to describe a malfunction of a computer. This, according to Postman, has serious limitations.
The hidden technologies of our world, such as language, also effects us culturally. Language is essentially who we are. It gives us an indentity as individuals and defines where we are located and how we exist with other people in a socially and culturually changing world. Postman says it is an important factor when considering the effects of technology. "Because it comes from inside us, we believe it to be a direct, unedited, unbiased, apolitical expression of how the world really is," (125). He relates to actual machines, which are outside of us, tangeable and modifiable. He is saying that language is a hidden technology that cannot be screwed with, while computers and machines can constantly be modified to fit the needs of the human race.
From medical machines, to the importance of language; from how a question is answered, to the facts about scientism and the world of Technopoly, Postman brings his argument to a close by stating that we need to go 'back to the basics' in order to achieve a future of success and development within the world. The importance of artistic expression and the significance of history all play a role in how we develop and think about the world. We as humans must dust off our books, step away from the computer screen and really consider what is going on in the world without being attached to a machine that is (according to myself) not really more intelligent than the human mind. I agree with Postman's theories and ideas because he is calculating (no pun intended) the methods of how technology is a positive and negative factor within our world. It has done so much good for us, yet has taken away the essence of the natural world and put all of us into cyberspace and virtual realities. We are so dependent upon the technologies that have been generated over the years. Every profession, except for perhaps teachers, are now 100% relying on computers and machines to get the job done. I exclude teachers because they are the educators of the world, and without education, the other careers don't have a chance. It is amazing to realize the scope of how technology has affected us and where it will possibly go in the next 100 years.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)