I ain't buying this as actually the young Billy Collins. These are not puerile thoughts. I guess I am projecting my own puerile self here, but this is the young would-be poet being channeled by the older poet. As seen in Yeats' "When You Are Old"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvx0AS1h2us

Here is a Hackpad if anyone wants to go off book and add to the context of 'marginalia' in any way. The hackpad is editable as well as embeddable.

As always if the page is too crowded just let me know and I will make my public notes private.

This sentence speaks to me as I believe the reason I love to read and write is because of my love for my dad. Equally, this sentence show how students ultimately learn strong habits of reading from their parents.

The description of the power of annotation resonates with me because I remember those experiences working through complex concepts within theoretical texts--Foucault's discussions of askesis and/or Deleuze and Guatarri's discussions of bodies without organs, for example--where I would read or try to read and just not get it or how they related. Then, maybe I'd just get a piece of it. Then, at some point, I can't exactly pin-point it, but I had read enough of the conversation to get "it." I think annotating was central to that!

I find it hard to believe that today's youth have too few opportunities to be social and interact. Between the numerous social media platforms, texting, and the tried and true meeting in real life and talking, what other social opportunities are they needing. Do they need a reminder to be social? Do they really need permission?

https://youtu.be/9QKq15WyGkA

Unfortunately there are cases of some adults being negligent when playing Pokemon Go - clearly not role models for today's youth. http://www.9news.com/news/local/share-this/sheriff-couple-abandons-child-to-play-pokemon-go/285844800

Augmented fine but what about connecting in authentic ways? Does Pokemon Go allow authentic connections or does it stifle the genuine human desire for connections we all inherently have?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhUCG-9s8kA&list=LLx-kiDrBTibO4d7ePeiJIWA&index=8

Fear of strangers in public places seems to be diminishing when you see others with their phones open. I've also noticed that generational barriers drop as people begin interacting as they tell each other where the nearest Poke stop is.

It is important to define what is mean by the "real world". Are we as a society saying that by playing a fictional game we are engaging in "real world" interactions? Again, what defines authentic communication and engagement with others?

Tobin, Joseph J. Pikachu's Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokémon. Durham: Duke University Press, 2004. Print.

This is true! I want to tap into how Pokemon is bringing teens (people in general, right?) together, and somehow do this in my classroom as well. My red flag: is there still value in face-to-face interaction that is being lost here with the Pokemon Go universe of interaction??

But responding out of fear to new forms of entertainment is a grand old tradition, no?

Although this was a bit more embodied than I expected when someone playing Pokemon crashed into me as I was walking in the street the other day...

Major claim statement - yet relies on an interpretive binary construction. Perhaps Pokemon GO just captures an inherent potential suppressed by fears of "disengagement"?

aren't most assumptions about tech and culture naive? Seriously

lest we fergit--it's all about the money Lebowski! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV59cxMsFnU

Who? Straw man setup here.

I think we need to do the opposite, back off. Maybe the only opportunities we need to give them are ones that invite them to make their own....opportunities.

Assumption here is that unless we "give them opportunities" to socialize, they won't. Exactly the same assumption many in education have: if we don't teach them they won't learn. Rubbish. I am confused here. Surely someone who has spent so much of her research life being in on teen zeitgeist would not ever take teen agency away. I see teen agency all the time, just not in my adult spaces.

Reminds me of this cultural appropriation:

Do they really see something, though? It's neat that the game is sending people to parks and landmarks, but how much are they actually taking in of that real world?

A serious point that should be at the forefront of our discussions. How does screen time affect human interaction and neurological functions? An interesting message here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRl8EIhrQjQ

Such an extremely hundreds of thousands of years old fragility.

If Pokemon Go and apps like it proliferate, won't "life as it is lived" -- "the real" -- include these technologies? Especially if "the people we live it with" are also playing? In which case, won't this just be another example of older generations worrying aloud about how technology is ruining kids/childhood/life?

What if Pokeman Go had a love child with Geocaching so "children" could actually find something tangible?

Turkle argues the our definition of screen time has been made moot by Pokemon Go because you take the screen into the world. When I take a picture or shoot a video am I taking the screen into the world? I am suggesting that Turkle is the one with the naive approach. I suggest that any tool is marked as such by its ability to "take you into the world" . I take a picture of my tractor brakes before I take them apart. I guess if I wore a pair of WR goggles I could be like the Honda mechanic who wears a pair of Google Glasses in order to find parts in the inventory and videos with repair suggestions, but I am not at all sure that the reality there is substantively different than looking in a parts book to do the same thing. Is virtual real? Yes, considering that reality is all constructed in the mind anyway including what comes from our sensorium. It is real. Not exactly news, is it?

Huh? An example here?

As opposed to addressing virtual problems. See above: real and virtual problems are both...problems. distinction without a difference? Well, I suppose a real knife in PokemonGo would be quite different than a virtual one, but both are problems, yes?

There are a black hole's worth of assumptions in this world and its binary virtual-real.

Fair enough. But Turkle is ignoring some real problems that Pokemon does address. According to the CDC, 74% of children ages 5-10 don't get enough exercise, and 80% of adults don't get enough exercise (Jaslow). Yet fitness tracker data shows that Pokemon players "were found to be walking 62.5 percent more than usual" (Baig).

Another real problem is that 14.8 million American adults are depressed and 40 million American adults suffer from anxiety (Anxiety and Depression Association of America). But believe it or not, Pokemon can help. Playing Pokemon improves peoples' moods, which in turn promotes social interaction. Plus, reward pathways and the hippocampus are stimulated during game play, both of which can atrophy with depression.

Professor Daniel Freeman from the department of psychiatry at Oxford University notes: “It [Pokémon Go] could be used to refocus your attention away from threat by getting you immersed in engaging activity, or it could be used to present the things you fear for long enough to help your anxiety naturally decline. Combine the right psychological science and augmented reality and you’ll have a really powerful treatment tool” (qtd. in Baig).

Boom. Mic drop.

It strikes me that web annotation is a kind of "augmented reading" that might be compared to augmented reality programs like Pokemon Go and interrogated/celebrated in similar ways.

Do we lose focus on our surroundings while social reading--distracted from the realities around us by the virtual? Or does social reading help us make connections, help us to see the world around us better?

Personally speaking, I've both discovered a piece of public art that I've never known about before and nearly walked into oncoming traffic as a result of playing around with the new Pokemon Go game.