Dumbest Generation Yet? Maybe..

Like Bauerlein says, we may be the "dumbest generation".  As appalling as some of his accusations are, they are not without merit.  Most of us get sucked into facebook, twitter and google+ without even realizing it.  If we aren't gamers, we can sit back and stigmatize them, but in essence we are doing the same thing with social networking.  We get so caught up in whats going on online that we forget to live our lives and learn the very things that are right in front of us.  Instead of learning hands on from our parents how to cook or clean a tough stain we deem ourselves too busy.  So when we need to know something we rely on our computers, smart phones and iPads to give us the information.  Forget memorizing recipes, you can pull them up with nothing more than a few clicks.  Oh you don't understand mile markers along the highway, sure just put it in your GPS. All of the technology available today doesn't require us to think critically or even think at all.  The information is at our finger tips, instead of up in our brains.  

So with all of that said, who is to blame?

Sure some of the blame rests on our shoulders ( as Gen Y), but it doesn't seem that the finger can be pointed at only one group/generation.  In Drutmans LA Times Article, he says "... it reflects not stupidity, but a failure of the school system and of society(which is run by grown-ups)..." He couldn't be more on point. Judging this 'stupidity' from the outside things may look very two dimensional, but being in this "dumbest generation" allows for a more three-dimensional view.  It's easy for other generations to simply say 'its Gen Y's fault', since they aren't in our position they don't realize how their actions may also have affected us and shaped our generation.  Bauerlein provided us with some statistics in his interview: the younger generation spends on average six hours a week studying and 9 hours a week social networking.  This should cause a knee jerk reaction to parents; during welcoming day/orientation at Shippensburg, i know they told my parents that for each hour of instruction i should be spending at least three hours out of class studying and working with the material.  If adults were holding themselves to a higher standard and instead of trying to be our 'friends', we could learn the things older generations value.  

Technology, as i referenced above allows the continuation of our ignorance of the world around us.  We know where to find it, as the La Times article states, so we don't pay to much mind to it when we 'learn' it in class, or hear about it when we are walking down the street.  I know that we are all guilty of that, I am no exception.  I also find it hypocritical of older generations to knock the amount of time we spend on the internet though.  All of my classes now have online components, so even if i wasn't 'obsessed' with technology as is suggested by Bauerlein, I cant escape it.  The reason.tv interview mentions that the web wouldn't be bad if kids were surfing sites such as the Smithsonian Institute's, but being online for anything such as classes, only adds to the temptation to surf.  So if we shouldn't be surfing the web, they shouldn't be surrounding us with entrancing media.  

Overall, we may be the dumbest generation as of yet, but we will not remain the dumbest generation for long.  If we are uneducated in worldly happenings and household matters, our kids won't be either.  If the trend isn't stopped soon, every successive generation will be less intelligent than the last.  

What is this world coming to...

I realize that i can not entirely understand the people filmed in Second Skin or their relationships, because it is not a "world" i choose to take part in.  I'm sure people don't understand why i spend hours upon hours riding my horses or snowboarding either, but it is what i enjoy and they are "groups" i am identified with.  I in no way feel superior to the people I'm about to bash, but I'm entitled to my opinion...

Interacting in virtual worlds seems wholly stupid to me.  I disagree that freedom to be ones self is in any way associated with participation in games such as the ones mentioned in the video.  Players willingly admit to editing themselves and their lives, how is that giving them freedom? They are conforming to characteristics they think people will like about them.  Anyone in the mood to play devils advocate could say, well isn't that what we do in our own lives today? Sure it is, so why are these virtual worlds necessary? They aren't.

Addiction is a serious risk to many gamers. We all take risks in our "real" lives such as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, driving cars, the list goes on...the point is: if one is trying to escape this "awful real world" that we have created, why are they going into virtual worlds where the same fundamental ideas/issues still exist? There is no point.

According to the movie, virtual relationships can exist in the real world.  One could liken them to e-Harmony or some other washed up dating site, but how well do you know someone from the internet?  Kevin one of the people documented, admitted to having a relationship with someone who was psycho, she came after him with a knife! Tough love? Real tough.  I'm repulsed by the idea of someone flying across the country to meet someone face to face that they have never met before in their entire lives and anticipate starting a relationship with.  I don't care if you met on e-harmony, facebook or in some video game...thats messed up. It would be like screaming to a rapist or murderer...me, me, pick me.

For instance: A man from my hometown and his pregnant girlfriend, soon to be wife moved to away from family and friends to begin their life.  The mother to be was searching for a deal on baby clothes on Craigslist where she found an older woman who had agreed to show her the selection she had at her house.  Upon meeting at the older woman's house, the mother to be was murdered.  The killer had pretended to be someone, edited herself, in cyberspace to lure the young mother into her home and cut out her baby, who died after tragically entering the world.  Had this woman not been trusting the personality she met online she still might be alive today.

**if you view the link, it does say allegedly..however, i know the mother of the man and it was true.  It just could not be proven in court.

To summarize, i feel that virtual worlds are an epic waste of time and dangerous.  I'm guilty of getting on facebook rather frequently as i'm sure most of you are.  However, i would never accept anyone i didn't know or try to begin a relationship with someone via cyberspace.  It's a dangerous and scary thing. I'm sure none of us want to end up like the woman i described above.  You may argue that this is an extreme case...but the extreme cases are real.  This isn't something to be messed with.  I don't feel that this form of technology or that these synthetic worlds are moving us forward.  It seems that were regressing.  The relationships portrayed in the documentary are strictly with other gamers, couldn't this be likened to segregation experienced in the 50's?  Gaming/social networking doesn't broaden our horizons it minimizes our view.

Corporate Advertrosities..Or Are They?

I found the two passages in Culture Jam to be a bit more than mildly irritating.  Lasn generalizes entirely too much.  The picture he paints of Americans as a whole perfectly depicts certain aspects of our culture including: our greed, self-absorbed attitude and blaming nature.  From there, the picture gets a little messy; he forgets to mention that we give into the environment around us.

On page 12 Lasn is quoted, "So gradually is the dosage increased that we're not aware of the toxicity." He is referencing our exposure to mass media.  But don't we have the right to say "no" and turn it off? If exposing yourself or your children to our relatively new "virtual environment" is something you feel strongly against, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Sitting back and complaining does not stop the world that is going on around you.  It would be similar to protesting Obama's inauguration if you didn't vote for either candidate.  If no action is taken, no words should be spoken.

On page 18 the author says, " A TV or radio station "pollutes" the cultural environment because that's the most efficient way to produce audiences."  Lasn goes into detail in a paragraph following this one about how "prevalent" and "toxic" all the advertisements coming from these devices are.  A few paragraphs down from that he hops up on his soap box again and preaches how the effects of these advertisements on us are largely ignored AND unknown!  When a few sentences before he bashes Corporate Advertising as "the largest single psychological project ever undertaken by the human race"; how can he say that if the effects are unknown?! What project is he alluding to, if there is no evidence proving either way?

On page 23 Kalle Lasn says, "We pretend not to care as advertisers excavate the most sacred parts of ourselves, and we end up actually not caring."  By pretending, if you believe that as a society we do, we are giving these "corporate jerks" blanket permission to play with our emotions and shape our opinions in whichever way they please.

...The point is:  The reading we did last week was entirely opinion based and lacked factual backing.  The author has all of these ideas as to how horribly eroded our sense of self and quality of life, yet presented no solutions.  His attack on "advertrosities"personally stuck in my side. I mean he's just knocking my future, no big deal.

I began reading Feed a few days ago and find it interesting that M.T. Anderson seemed to share my opinion.  Through Titus, her main character and narrator she expresses, " Of course, everyone is like, da da da, evil corporations, oh they're so bad, we all say that, and we all know they control everything.  I mean it's not great, because who knows what evil shit they're up to.  Everyone feels bad about that.  But they're the only way to get all this stuff, and it's no good getting pissy about it, because they're still going to control everything whether you like it or not.  Plus, they keep like everyone in the world employed, so it's not like we could do without them."  This represents my opinion almost perfectly.  Of course corporations could do many things differently and everyone would offer up a different set of solutions; but, you can't please everyone.  Corporate America provides goods/services according to the demand of consumers.  If we respond to advertising and continue to want more, they will take it and run with it. Why shouldn't they?  It provides many jobs and consumers are provided the items they desire.  The fact that consumers are uneducated and fall "victim" to corporations is no one's fault but their own.