Storytellers—filmmakers, novelists, etc. — know that it is emotion which impacts people most profoundly. Yes, facts, events, structure are important, but what people remember—and what is more likely to push them to act—is the way the narrative made them feel.
I think this might be the most important point because if people don't feel connected to what your talking about they lose interest all together.
This applies to the content of your talk and also to the visuals you use (if any). Cutting the superfluous is one of the hardest things to do because when we are close to the topic, as most presenters are, it *all* seems important.
This also relates to my earlier comment of simplicity. If you can remove the fluff and focus on the core idea and theme people respond better than if it is a complex layered idea.
Many teens feel as though they’re in a no-win situation when it comes to sharing information online: damned if they publish their personal thoughts to public spaces, and damned if they create private space that parents can’t see.
What she may not realize is that not only her friends can see her blog. She's giving up more privacy then just the information that she's sharing with her friends.
eens’ unhealthy obsession with, or rejection of, privacy.
is this implying that teens have forever rejected privacy? or forever sought privacy? confused as a result of the clothing reference. I for one have always coveted my privacy.
If you’re not on MySpace, you don’t exist.” What Skyler meant is simply that social acceptance depends on the ability to socialize with one’s peers at the “cool” place. Each cohort of teens has a differ-ent space that it decides is cool. It used to be the mall, but for the youth discussed in this book, social network sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are the cool places. Inevitably, by the time this book is published, the next generation of teens will have inhab-ited a new set of apps and tools, making social network sites feel passé. The spaces may change, but the organizing principles aren’t different.
Not a fan of the idea that if you arent on social media you "don't exist".
The internet presented me with a bigger world, a world populated by people who shared my idiosyncratic interests and were ready to discuss them at any time, day or night.
speaks to the fact that the internet connects people with similar interests.
And even though many teens are frequent texters, the teens were not directing most of their attention to their devices. When they did look at their phones, they were often sharing the screen with the person sitting next to them, reading or viewing something together.The parents in the stands were paying much more attention to their devices. They were even more universally equipped with smart-phones than their children, and those devices dominated their focus.
Interesting observation and turn of events seeing as most think that teens are the ones distracted by their phones. This text seems to imply that they were using them for social interation with one another.
What was surprising, at least to most adults, was how little the teens actually used them as phones. The teens I observed were not making calls. They whipped out their phones to take photos of the Homecoming Court, and many were texting fran-tically while trying to find one another in the crowd.
Very relevant to how my friends and myself use cell phones today. only really call people when necessary.
As in many schools I’ve visited over the years, friendships at this school in Nashville were largely defined by race, gender, sexuality, and grade level, and those networks were immediately visible based on whom students were talking to or sitting with.
Awesome point because I don't think we realize that we have a natural tendency to move towards and befriend certain groups of people. When I think of this tendency online it starts to fade.
how little things change. I’m guessing a lot of the drama is still the same, it’s just the format is a little differ-ent. It’s just changing the font and changing the background color really.
I think its an interesting view to say that it's just the backrground/color that has changed. However this is coming from a teenager who has only experienced a life full of technology
riving an ordinary car, though, doesnt require the driver to belong to a particular profession, because it's easy enough that most adults can do it with a modicum of training.
I really like this analogy because it illustrates why the newspaper missed the threat of online news. The newspapers didn't see the threat of news on the internet because of the lack of professionalism by the authors.
Many people in the newspaper business, the same people who worried about the effects of competition like USA Today, missed the significance of the internet.
This is so relavant to today because of the multiple sources we look to for the news online. I often look to twitter or find out news on facebook instead of watching channel six or reading a newspaper. I often have to check the legitimacy of the content on another website/source
And that was the round journey. It took that long for anyone to have any impact and get some feedback. And that's changed now because, as journalists, we interact in real time. We're not in a position where the audience is reacting to news. We're reacting to the audience, and we're actually relying on them. They're helping us find the news. They're helping us figure out what is the best angle to take and what is the stuff that they want to hear. So it's a real-time thing. It's much quicker. It's happening on a constant basis, and the journalist is always playing catch up.
And finding the source becomes more and more important -- finding the good source -- and Twitter is where most journalists now go. It's like the de facto real-time newswire, if you know how to use it, because there is so much on Twitter.
interesting that what we see as social media and all for fun is actually used as a source of news for journalists
And that was the round journey. It took that long for anyone to have any impact and get some feedback. And that's changed now because, as journalists, we interact in real time. We're not in a position where the audience is reacting to news. We're reacting to the audience, and we're actually relying on them. They're helping us find the news. They're helping us figure out what is the best angle to take and what is the stuff that they want to hear. So it's a real-time thing. It's much quicker. It's happening on a constant basis, and the journalist is always playing catch up.
This is seen in other industries as well not only in journalism. In intro to info systems we are talking about open sourced code where anyone can go in to see the code and expand on it. This is in contrast to close source code where it would be more of a broadcat culture without power in the audience
So it's a really interesting time to be a journalist, but the upheaval that I'm interested in is not on the output side. It's on the input side. It's concern with how we get information and how we gather the news. And that's changed, because we've had a huge shift in the balance of power from the news organizations to the audience. And the audience for such a long time was in a position where they didn't have any way of affecting news or making any change. They couldn't really connect. And that's changed irrevocably.
relates to the shift from streaming media that we have talked about in class. Power is moving to individual people.
We’ve known for some time that multi-tasking is bad for the quality of cognitive work, and is especially punishing of the kind of cognitive work we ask of college students.
Interesting that this is in direct contrast from what we read in davidson's interview "the myth of monotasking" both are professors at top institutions Shirky at NYU and Davidson at Duke University. Just goes to show the difference in views and the difficulty in adjusting to such a rapidly changing learning environment
Multi-tasking is cognitively exhausting — when we do it by choice, being asked to stop can come as a welcome change.
i agree in that when asked to focus on one thing instead of many it can be somewhat of a relief
used social media such as text-messaging and YouTube to spread their message. They chained the doors of public schools in Chile and organized rallies with as many as 800,000 attendees, leading the Chilean government to increase spending on education and reexamine the country's educational system.6
pretty amazing how social media has to a certain extent given a voice to those who have not had one in the past. no one would listen to the students who were fifteen to seventeen years old without them coming together through social media
To complicate the issue in my own mind, some of the multitaskers in my classes are A students and passionately defend the value of Googling me to see if I really know what I'm talking about, while other students readily admit that multitasking in the classroom means they spend less attention on the teacher and on the other students.
I think an argument can be made for both sides. Ultimately each individual has to learn about what works for them and act accordingly. Given the opportunity to do so it might be beneficial for students to learn what works for them and let the teacher know what they feel comfortable with.
woo, glad that’s over. Now we can go on to real learning, because that test–and he used a phrase that we would not like right now. He says, “this is a test only of lower order thinking for the lower orders,”
what was the way of learning before multiple choice testing? was it just essays and discussion? All we have really known is multiple choice testing... at least in larger standardized tests.
Well, in fact, what we find is the mind can’t concentrate for 20 minutes productively.
has this always been the case? We often hear about how our attention spans are shortening due to the digital era and the relevance of technology/social media. I'd like to see if there are any studies on attention span from before digital era until now
The other thing for adults is do not get into your car after you’ve been through a traumatic divorce hearing in divorce court, after you’ve been fired, after you’ve gotten a very bad message from a doctor about an illness. Heartache and heartburn, emotional and physical trauma, are far more distracting than email, and we don’t see those as such because we’ve never counted– we tend not to think of what’s happening within our bodies as distracting, but of course it is. Anyone knows that.
Hard for me to compare these to texting and driving i'd like to pose the question of voluntary vs. involuntary distractions? of course heartburn/ divorce is voluntary to a certain extent but not as voluntary as deciding to text/email while driving
if somebody had come in and made a joke to the airline pilot just as he was landing the plane, he would have seen the commercial airliner across the way
if somebody had come in and made a joke to the airline pilot just as he was landing the plane, he would have seen the commercial airliner across the way
Would be interested to see if they made an experiment on this specifically, I am somewhat skeptical as to whether this would truly help the pilot