I sat watching Digital Nation very interested and slightly appalled. I was genuinely interested in the advances in technology and the creative, experimental uses of technology. Unlike the rest of my class, I was not appalled at the effects technology and online games have on human interactions. The producers of Digital Nation had a purpose: to produce an extreme view that human interactions are being lost all together as a result of the digital age. I was appalled at the one-sided perspective of this documentary and the dehumanizing of the people who do play video games regularly. Most people who do play online video games are not hard core gamers, and even those who are play because they enjoy the escapism. This want or need for an escapism is not a new thing! Isn't reading a form of escapism? Doesn't everyone thoroughly enjoy vicariously living through the characters in a book? Reading for pleasure is the same thing as playing video games except reading does not involve human interactions at all. I don't understand why this documentary placed such a heavy emphasis on the loss of human interactions via online video games when this modern form of escapism actually involves human interaction while reading involves none.
Personally, I have played and enjoyed video games such as Oblivion and Guild Wars. Oblivion is a single player game that involves creating a character and essentially living in any manner which you choose. This single player game is equivalent to reading because it does not involve human interactions, however, it does foster conversations just as reading does. People connect by the fact that they can discuss or share opinions on a specific book; in the same way, people connect by discussing their opinions on a specific game. While reading a book requires imagination, the reader simply follows the story of the writer. In playing Oblivion, however, one uses imagination, creativity, and strategy to create an entirely new character, a life path, and solutions to quests; the choice is yours! Now, as for Guild Wars, human connectivity is increased because it involves the interaction of digital characters. You create a character and advance through the game by participating in quests. Often you must seek help from other players to complete quests and therefore a form of reciprocity is simulated in the the gaming world and eventually guilds are created. Guilds are groups formed in the game of players with similar interests that form for mutual aid. This digital interaction is a manner of human interaction and in my opinion it is neither a good or bad thing. Why are people afraid of a new form of interaction? No one is forcing you to communicate or interact through the digital world, so if there is a personal problem for you rebel against it. Just say no to those diabolical video games!
Ultimately, technology is advancing and the only logical thing to do is to take advantage of what it can offer us. Another thing people scoffed at was having conferences on second life. Why should people fly across the globe to meet for a simple conference? It is less costly and more efficient to use second life, which simulates human interactions.
Technology forge ahead! We should be wary of all the consequences involved in advancing technology and the digital age but we should not delay progress because, after all, it is progress. Also, no one should blindly buy into the fear Digital Nation wants to spread about the digital age because there is an entirely other viewpoint that was sorely lacking in this documentary.
I agree Maddy. There was a brief, about 1 minute, mention that advancing technology was nothing new, and that people were also opposed to books when they came out, and radios, and telephones, tvs, etc. But this documentary did seem remarkably top-heavy. I was thinking along the same lines while watching Digital Nation, and I think a good quote that sums it up is what one of the ladies at one of the conventions said. "You have no idea what this type of interaction is like until you experience it yourself." She's right. Who are we to judge them until we've experienced both the positive and negative effects of the digital advancements?
ReplyDeleteExactly along the lines I was thinking. We cannot judge and believe face-to-face interactions are superior to digital interactions because they are simply different ways of living and engaging with others.
ReplyDeleteEven though I mostly agree with the documentary, this is an interesting alternate perspective. I agree that there wasn't much of an attempt at looking at benefits of progress in technology.
ReplyDeleteOne difference between digital and face-to-face interaction is how we perceive it afterwards. Like, if I talk to someone on facebook, I won't think "I had such a great time hanging out with friends today!", because I was physically sitting around alone in my house. If the majority of my interactions over a few weeks were digital, I'd feel very isolated.
But digital interaction does have benefits which the documentary didn't focus on. A lot of social anxiety is removed from the situation, and people feel more comfortable sharing information. I've been a lot more social on these blogs then in class, because it's easier for me to take the time to formulate my thoughts and express them.
Your point on the extremism of "Digital Nation" is interesting and very true! But I remain glued to my opinion that technology ultimately hinders our capability to focus and hone our ability to lead interesting, artful conversations with people. There is something to be said about the ability for someone to articulately explain themselves in a conversation face-to-face with someone else. Like Anne said, the experience of using a computer 8 hours each day as a replacement for social interaction just doesn't produce the same outcome as leading conference meetings outside the boundaries of a keyboard and screen. While certain circumstances are cost-efficient and therefore probably very useful, I think video-gaming and an entire company's use of virtual conferencing might just be a bit over the top!
ReplyDeleteI agree it may be a little over the top to entirely forfeit face-to-face conversations but I admire the innovation of holding a conference with people across the globe on a digital stage. Also, I know some people are personally uncomfortable with forgoing human interaction, as am I, but I think we need to consider that that doesn't mean this type of communication is inferior only different.
ReplyDelete