Today's entry was brought to you by the letter Y...

Okay, in case my post Keeping Up with The Jones', bummed you out, and you read that article about the weird twenty-something decade of postponed adulthood and thought, wow... at least I'm not the only one but damn. And in case you are now daydreaming about your childhood days and how simple they were, hanging out and watching Sesame St, long before complex computer animated cartoons came into play... I have found something that might just solve all your problems (well at least the two specific aforementioned problems).

http://jezebel.com/5646999/twentysomethings-need-their-own-sesame-street

Enjoy, YipYip!

Land without technology- Epilogue

Okay... so... I must make another concession on the topic of technology being the downfall of all that is good and right in the world. Also... if it's not reading across, I am definitely being sarcastic here, as there are numerous benefits from technology at large. My harping is mainly focused on the preservation of creative thinking in young children while their innate developmental tendencies allow for it to such a florid extent. But, New York Times, you bring up some interesting ideas with this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/magazine/19video-t.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&ref=general&src=me

While this is still not tackling my issue of fostering organically generated creative abstract thought, it does make an interesting case for ways the mass appeal of extremely reinforcing video games can be harnessed and used to benefit kids. I guess I am now wondering why this hasn't been utilized to a larger degree sooner? Educational tech games have been around a while. I know when I was a kid, I could spend hours on Math Blaster... does anyone else remember that computer game? It was awesome, and believe me when I say, me describing anything related to math as "awesome," is a rarity.

I think one of the major important parts of this article, was mentioning how testing is such a scary huge deal, you pass or you fail, live or die. Those tests are so stressful for kids and teachers alike and I think they really take away from the purpose of learning. While as the article mentions, some people feel kids should learn for the sake of it, not through games, kids aren't learning from the sake of it now, they are learning for the sake of the exam and isn't that even worse? I don't see the benefits of learning out of fear and pressure and stress rather than out of fun and enjoyment and enthusiasm. I think there is something to be said for the forgiveness of mistakes that is taught in video games. Sure you may die a gory death but you get to try again, sure maybe a few levels back... maybe all over again, but the point is you get to learn from mistakes and go back and that is a really valuable lesson.

I still don't think this is an IDEAL system to implement and I think age restrictions for tech based learning should be put in place. To me, that video of a two-year old smoking was just as scary as videos of two-year olds playing with ipads. But, I do think maybe there can be a happy medium.

While we're on this, can someone design a video game for GRE prep? It's a little late for me now, but I could have really used a dopamine rush during my studying a few months ago. I don't wish that kind of hell on anyone.

Big fat cartoon tears

photo by Urbancitylife- http://www.flickr.com/photos/breakingsights/


Did you see Toy Story 3 this summer? Well I did and if you didn't then you missed out my friend. Boyfriend and I went in proudly with our 3D glasses and slushy (regrettable choice) braced to be surrounded by a massive crowd of 10 and unders, but we were relieved/surprised to find that there were plenty of other twenty-somethings already there. Boyfriend wasn't as surprised I don't think, but he is an unabashed cartoon lover so it hardly made a difference to him either way. Anyways, we loved the movie, and I got all choked up more times than I want to publicly admit to. Boyfriend did too, but he is also an unabashed sap so he won't care that I'm calling him out (right?).

This week we watched Le ballon rouge (The Red Balloon). It's an older French short film that I had been meaning to watch for a while and finally got around to. Basically, it's a very simple film with almost no dialogue and the main characters are a boy and his balloon. It was so heart-breakingly pure, that's the best way I could describe it. Of course it involves some imagination to get swept up in the story of a balloon loving a boy. But still, the idea that such a simple object could illicit so much emotional response was really intriguing to me.

Okay, so if you haven't seen Toy Story 3, I hope you have seen at least some Pixar movie in your lifetime a. because they are great and b. because I'm going to keep referencing them for the duration of this post.

I started thinking about the other movies they have made that surround typically inanimate objects, mainly Wall-E since that is another one we have watched again recently. How an animated robot can elicit such a strong emotional response from people, kids and adults and of course it does this because it has been given human traits for us to connect with. It's not like we are connecting with a plain aluminum box that just sits there... like a box. Anthropomorphism and the reaction it draws from a subject is really interesting to me because I don't really understand the evolutionary background behind it. I assume that it's not something that was developed as an intentional asset of its own accord, but rather is simply the brain generalizing the perception of traits we have been conditioned to pick up on in humans. We know we are looking at a robot, but what we see are emotions that have been crafted into a mechanical face, we stop seeing the machine and just register these facial cues.

Okay, so then what about the red balloon? Even without human expressions an object can display emotion through action, even when restricted to the vague actions allotted to a balloon... like floating/rising/falling/speeding up/hanging still/and SPOILER ALERT: popping (come on.. like you didn't know that would happen?). Sure, in this scenario we have the attachment of the boy to the balloon to respond to as well, and reading the attachment he displays helps convey what the balloon cannot.

Okay then, back to Pixar, the very beginning clip of the lamp jumping on the I. We connect to A LAMP people... and I tip my hat to you Pixar, for making us all a little bit crazy for having an emotional response to a desk lamp. Obviously Ikea thought this was pretty funny to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdIJOE9jNcM

I just find it interesting how easy it is for us to connect to the most subtle human cues of emotion when they are displayed on inanimate objects and yet, we seem to have such a hard time picking up on these things with other people. It's like we get distracted by all of the other aspects of connecting with another person that we are too busy processing simultaneously, that we miss the crucial points.

So after my rant on how video games and media are ruining the world, let me clarify, PIXAR is exempt from those statements.

I remember when I was little I was pretty much bored by any show that involved real people. There was too much dialogue and I just tuned out. I loved cartoons and animation and I think this speaks pretty generally for most kids these days. It's interesting to me that something simpler would be MORE captivating to children. When I did watch kids shows with real people, they would always really exaggerate their facial expressions, watch a clip of Sesame Street and you'll see what I mean. Old school cartoons, whether they involved inanimate objects, animals, or people, all involved really overly emotive characters and it makes sense that kids would latch on to that in order to learn these cues. Now however, animation is very different. Rather than being simple exaggerated subjects, they are extremely complex and over the top and I think we really lost something there (minus you Pixar).

Okay, my point is, if we have this amazing ability to generalize and perceive emotive facial cues imposed onto objects even if this is just a messy side effect from the evolution of this ability, you'd think that we would be stellar at picking up on these with other humans, right? I think the fact is that we ARE really good with this with other humans but we let other things get in the way.

I'm not the only one who thinks this. Malcolm Gladwell, think so too and he wrote a book called Blink, which you might be interested in reading. That is, unless this whole post to you was a waste of eye muscle movement aside from the funny Ikea commercial. In which case, I suggest you go watch Le ballon rouge and I DARE you not to have an emotional response.

Status: Keeping up with the Jones'

image- Le Love
Ok, so not to continue to rip on technology while.. you know... writing on a blog... on a computer... I'm a hypocrite ok, accept it and let's move forward or we're never going to get through this entry.

But seriously, I have been thinking a lot about this lately. I have a hunch that I am not the only person out there who spends a few too many hours a week on Facebook perusing... (ok stalking) her friends/acquaintances. Does this sound familiar? Raise those hands higher and repeat after me "My name is ______ and I am a Facebook-aholic." But really, why do we do this?

I started thinking about it and about how I FEEL when I look at Facebook, what it is I am looking to find and what keeps me checking in. If you read one of the articles linked in the previous post you would know one theory of how reinforcing these little internet check points are, how they might actually be re-wiring (I hate how vague that term is.. but you know what I mean) our reward systems and decreasing our patience. I don't entirely disagree with this, but I was thinking a bit more and I have perhaps a more tangible theory on some of the detriments of Facebook.

What are we looking for? Or rather, what are we putting out there? Photos of happy times with friends, of new apartments, of playful pets, of raging parties and famous concerts, of delicious food and new babies and weddings. What are we posting? Status updates of new jobs, of relationships being built, of visits with family and travel plans, of weekends well-spent and announcements of new projects.

So what AREN'T we posting? Photos of us when we wake up in the morning, when we're hungover, when we're sick, when we don't feel like going to work, when we are folding laundry or judging ourselves in the mirror. We don't announce breakups and often avoid even posting true relationship status for fear of the dreaded "____ is no longer in a relationship," newsfeed. We don't announce deaths of family and how awful they are, we don't announce being fired, we don't announce feeling depressed, feeling anxious, feeling lost.

Who is on Facebook? Mainly, people in the twenties. People who are in college, or recently out or are somewhat new to the working world. I just can't imagine that alllllllll of us on this network have it all together at this point. Yet, look at what we put out there, how would anyone know otherwise?

How do we connect to friends these days? A lot of it, is on Facebook. There are fewer phone calls and more messages sent, fewer voice mails and more texts. Do you remember what your friendships were like in middle school and high school in the pre-Facebook era (for those who remember)? Well I know at least for me, my friends were my friends because they were the people I could go to when I had a problem, when I was upset about something and needed to talk it out.

I think that Facebook has set some new norms for our friendships and for us as individuals. We don't communicate directly as often and what we do put out there is so positive positive positive, that if you feel anything but, it feels like a failure. It's hard to keep up with the Jones' when the Jones' seem to only to go on lovely trips, have adorable babies that never cry according to photo documentation, eat delicious meals, never work since there is no evidence to show otherwise and have perky put together status updates dripping from your iphone at all times.

Ok, and I know I am just as guilty of this as anyone (I'm a hypocrite, remember, you accepted it a few paragraphs back too late now!). But honestly, why WOULD we post anything else? Putting cries for help out there aren't really effective even if we had the guts to put it out there. What do you get back, a little icon that says "_____ likes this" to your "I am feeling emotionally sound for the first time all week," status? The pay off for taking the risk of putting out such a vulnerable statement into the masses, just isn't worth it.

So, do I think this is going to change? No. Am I going to start posting when I feel sad, or hopeless, or like I have no idea what I am doing with my life (and as a 23 year-old, I'm probably going to feel this way from time to time for... a while...see this New York Times article for reasons as to why- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22Adulthood-t.html- see I'm normal!...)? No. When people do put out those kinds of status updates do I think to myself, I wish they would call someone and talk about it rather than a half-hearted invitation to no one in particular to reach out? Yes. But do I reach out to them? No. Because it's so hard to tell whether people actually want those things acknowledged or if it is a way of venting semi-anonymously that is what makes it appealing. Maybe reaching out would be over-stepping the fourth wall that is put up with a screen. So the barriers of tech-communication are laid and we try to clumsily navigate them as the pioneer generation of the technological new world.

I just wanted to point it out as something to keep in the back of your head. Next time your newsfeed seems particularly sugar-coated and you're wondering why you're the only one who seems to be struggling amidst all the smiling faces just remember that you're not. If you need further proof, just read some blogs, those are always whiny and annoying right? Anyways, the Jones' were probably overcompensating train wrecks.

Once upon a time, in a land without technology...

photo by me
A couple months ago, some of my friends and I played Dungeons and Dragons for the first time. For those of you who don't know, this game is awesome, seriously. It's awesome because it is based entirely on the imaginations of the players. You can never run out of ideas, or plot lines, or moves, or missions because you make it up as you go. I then realized that the fact that this kind of game was so novel to me was kind of sad. That a game based on imagination was so revolutionary, so different and so thrilling, says a lot about my own lack of imaginary use lately.

I've also been thinking a lot about video games, and the fact that my boyfriend just got an Xbox has nothing to do with it.. I swear. Anyways, video games are also awesome. I mean, I personally don't have a lot of experience beyond N64, but just watching him play with these extremely vivid images and winding plot lines is enough for me to understand how it can consume someone's afternoon. That along with evidence that some video games produce a dopaminergic response similar to eating and having sex... explains a lot. However, my boyfriend is an actor, and he uses his imagination all the time, so the fact that he can spend hours playing those games doesn't really bother me. He already had a childhood full of creativity and imagination and I have seen the photos of him in crazy costumes to prove it.

I too had my share of imaginary play growing up (see previous posts for plenty of embarrassing examples). However, I really worry about kids today (and I KNOW I sound like I am 50 years old but bear with me) growing up who only know how to play using these devices. I feel like there should really be some mandatory imagination hour put into the schedules at school in between all of the absurd test prep that begins as early as elementary school these days. Imagination is the child's specialty. Their true mastery is the ability to be entirely unfazed by the rules of reality that limit our thought as we grow. It is not only a natural skill to develop, but imagination increases our cognitive flexibility, something that has a lot of benefits, including helping to cope with trauma later in life should it occur. Rigid inflexible play is also often a sign for a variety of mental illnesses and disorders. Of course, children vary in their play and some are more elaborate or outlandish than others, so we are talking about the extremes here. I just hope that kids now are getting the opportunities to use their brains in this way because it only becomes harder and harder to find the outlets to do it as we get older. It's no coincidence that professions in the arts are so glorified and coveted. They allow us to do what we are programmed to do from such a young age.

I don't feel like diving into my entire thesis right now (maybe another day) so if I didn't convince you I don't care... for now; but you still have to admit, if nothing else, when kids use their imaginations, it's pretty damn cute.

Exhibit A: my linking wasn't working so copy and paste below, then enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM35grvNkss

Exhibit B: for those of you not yet convinced to go turn off the computer and go play dress-up, here are some good articles on the other downsides of too much tech time.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/features/timestopics/series/your_brain_on_computers/index.html