Clive Thompson: “Technology is sooooo awesome, dude.”
Anil Dash, Chris Anderson, Seth Priebatsch, and Jane McGonigal: “We have a social responsibility to use the power of technology to solve big world problems.”
The last message is my favorite. Just as I appreciated Thompson’s optimism, I find it very v
 |
| Heist-like dynamics make the best networks. Best metaphor in a while. |
Dash said, “We create opportunities for people to do unexpected and great things when we make networks that are more inclusive.” He pointed out that networks afford individuals who are not “well-born” or privileged to have a voice. Rural farmers can connect with world-leading visionaries if they choose the proper channels. Or, consider one of the largest networks that exists, Facebook. Although Marc Zuckerberg, the creator, is an incredibly influential (not to mention wealthy) entrepreneur, in reality he is shy and somewhat awkward (as remembered forever by the Business Insider). Yet, the man who never really outgrew his baby face rose to the highest ranks in technological influence. His intelligence and drive notwithstanding, he had an entire network of users who loved his product, shared it with their own networks, and supported the continuance of it. He was able to spread his idea until it became bigger than any social difficulties he experienced, and people respected him for it. I also enjoyed Dash’s discussion of how, with the right network, things become transparent. Many sets of eyes equals fewer places not seen.
When Anderson said, “Giving away what you think is your biggest secret invites others into helping make it better,” I was reminded of the discussion we had on copyrights and intellectual property. Rather than “keep your cards close to your chest,” Anderson advocates free sharing of ideas that they may be improved. Of course, this concept begs questions like, “who gets the profit?”, “who gets the rights?” and so forth, but I still found his point, that only when we have entire groups of people motivated by others to do better, do things really progress in monumental and novel ways.
Priebatsch cracked me up, from his college-dropout jokes to his incredibly intellectual and inspiring discussion. While I hear his idea of the “game layer,” visualizing it is an entirely different matter and calls to mind questions regarding power and control. The game dynamics he lays out are theories of human interaction and behavior, and to harness them is to control how humans act. Priebatsch hopes to use them towards positive ends, like education, but how can we moderate these dynamics so they do not negatively affect or control our behavior? In the simplest form, do we risk compromising free will and choice in integrating and increasing proficiency these dynamics?
Finally, McGonigal. Honestly, I was offended how often her audience laughed at her propositions! You could immediately sense the audience held prejudice and distain for gaming. Yet through her discussion, I recognized the incredible space that games present for solving problems as we imagine ourselves super-powered hopeful individuals. Simulators have been used for years, from crash-testing to training astronauts, so why not implement them to solve problems? If we can create systems, where the individuals interacting within these systems are able to shake the insecurities and limitations we face in everyday life, the solutions and innovations coming from such a system go beyond imagination. I greatly respect her encouragement that we “make the future” through harnessing technology, rather than simply watch it develop. It returns to the concept of responsibility. With the tools we have, are we morally compelled or obligated to activate the networks and crowd source knowledge that lies at our fingertips, to address current crises? Such a question cannot be easily answered, but these authors take important steps, and their work is the type we need to encourage, promote, and build off of.
Finally, McGonigal. Honestly, I was offended how often her audience laughed at her propositions! You could immediately sense the audience held prejudice and distain for gaming. Yet through her discussion, I recognized the incredible space that games present for solving problems as we imagine ourselves super-powered hopeful individuals. Simulators have been used for years, from crash-testing to training astronauts, so why not implement them to solve problems? If we can create systems, where the individuals interacting within these systems are able to shake the insecurities and limitations we face in everyday life, the solutions and innovations coming from such a system go beyond imagination. I greatly respect her encouragement that we “make the future” through harnessing technology, rather than simply watch it develop. It returns to the concept of responsibility. With the tools we have, are we morally compelled or obligated to activate the networks and crowd source knowledge that lies at our fingertips, to address current crises? Such a question cannot be easily answered, but these authors take important steps, and their work is the type we need to encourage, promote, and build off of.
 |
| Gaming is rad, but if the genre is to be one of empowerment, we need to address the ubiquitous design of female characters as sexualized and objectified. Show me the 5'2" 125 lb., love-handled character who can beat all odds, and I'll be playing for life. |
I love how you started off your post with a "sum up" of many of the different opinions we've been reading about lately. Pariser hates technology; Thompson loves it; and all the geniuses we heard from in the videos believe that regardless, it is powerful and thus gives way for SO many opportunities and ways to change and better the world.
ReplyDeleteI love what these speakers are getting at, mostly because they are concepts I've never heard before. Yes, I've heard that technology is evil and making us stupid and antisocial, and yes, I've heard that it's actually making us smarter, but I've never heard the specific argument "it can solve all the world's biggest problems, if we allow it to" especially in regards to games.
McGonigal was my favorite presentation and, I too, was somewhat cranky at all the laughs (glad I wasn't the only one). I sat there listening to her speech, being absolutely captivated, and hearing snickers made me almost sad. It may seem a little ridiculous at first, sure. I mean, it's not every day that you hear someone say we need to play more video games in order to save the world (most arguments I've heard lately have been that people play too much). And maybe at first thought you'd think, yeah I could see how they could be harmful. What, everybody just sitting around in a dark room doing nothing all day. But that's the beautiful thing about these speeches: they (especially McGonigal) are proving that games and these new technologies aren't "nothing" but actually teaching us new skills, like productivity, optimism, determination, etc.
I love your question of responsibility; it's a good thing to tie into these ideas. Do we have an obligation to use our tools to better the world and solve crises? Well, it's a complicated question, as you note. And yeah, it's probably a lot easier said than done. So my immediate answer is we probably don't have an obligation, per say, to actually save the world, but we do have an obligation to try. And if we're using technology, and especially games, as we're so fond of, it may not be much of a sacrifice.
On a lighter note, I love your mention of female characters as a side note. Studying sociology, I've become much more interested in feminism and many other inequalities that are EVERYWHERE. Before learning about them in-depth, it was almost like my eyes were closed and then suddenly opened because I saw and understand and thought of things much differently. And yes that's not super relevant, but your thought about female video game characters got me thinking about a video game my boyfriend bought recently. Get this: the only female character is dressed in less than a bikini. I mean, seriously she may as well be naked. (And she's definitely 'developed' if you know what I mean, because of course). Oh, and it gets worse. Her name is Quiet. Because she can't speak. Yeah I found that lovely.
But anyway, I probably shouldn't belittle games after just writing about how important they are. So, yes, I want to see these types of tropes disappear, like you do, but for now let's be happy knowing that we at least have the tools and power to improve. One step at a time.
Happy last blog!