Quiet, The Power of Introverts Third Text for Assignment 2

Quiet: The Power of Introverts

Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking.

According to her book jacket, Susan Cain’s work on introversion and shyness has appeared in the New York Times and on PsychologyToday.com.  She is an honors graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law School.  The studies she cites in her book are backed by 271 notes of researched material.

This book addresses, in perhaps a round-about way, some of the concerns about smart mobs.  Cook at the Winnipeg Free Press certainly questions the wisdom of the crowd -  is a group of people really going to reach better conclusions or more creative solutions than an individual? (my second text posting on Kony2012)

The focus of much of what we have read in this course and certainly throughout the program, has been that groups are good.  Clay Shirky in Here Comes Everybody quotes James Surowiecki concerning the “wisdom of crowds…distributed groups whose members aren’t connected can often generate better answers, by pooling their knowledge or intuition without having to come to an agreement” (Shirky, 2009, p 269).

We can see this idea that groups are good in how our elementary schools promote seating children in pods or groups of 4 tables where students can engage with each other.   Our corporate offices support open concept office areas; “over 70 per cent of today’s employees work in an open space” (Cain, 2012, p 18) where office mates can easily meet each other and exchange ideas. 

As a college professor I am encouraged to create group activities so students can learn from each other and also be prepared for the workplace where they will be expected to work on a team.

It is all based on the concept that we will get better results – a better education or improved workplace productivity - when we bring people together.  The philosophy “insists that creativity and intellectual achievement come from a gregarious place” (Cain, 2012, p. 15).

But Cain quotes a 5^th grade teacher who cautions “respect for others is based on their verbal abilities, not their originality or insight” (2012, p. 22).  Cain also reports on studies that clearly showed participants “produced more ideas when they worked on their own than when they worked as a group. They also produced ideas of equal or higher quality when working individually” (2012, p. 88).

Why this seeming difference of groups versus individuals?  The idea that group work was superior, according to Cain, was a result of the world wide web which allowed “ridiculously easy group forming” (Shirky, 2009, p. 54).  She notes the irony that the web was created by computer engineers who were working independent of each other.

Cain says we have ”failed to realize that what makes sense of the asynchronous, relatively anonymous interactions of the Internet, might not work as well inside the face-to-face, politically charged, acoustically noisy confines of an open plan office” (Cain, 2012, p. 26).

This book suggests we should reconsider that approach and the author provides some compelling studies behind her argument. 

Cain cites studies that have ”shown that performance gets worse as group size increases” (p. 88) but then notes “The one exception to this is online brainstorming. Groups brainstorming electronically, when properly managed, not only do better than individuals, research shows; the larger the group, the better it performs” (Cain, p 89).

This perhaps supports the hope that the smart mobs may in fact produce better results than what might be achieved by face to face group interactions. But note she includes the phrase "when properly managed" which is something the Concerned Citizen report, (my first posting) addresses with the term "handrails." 

Again, if we are to parent or teach a successfully transliterate population, the term takes on even more significance considering Cain’s research; we need to be transliterate across multiple technical platforms and in a variety of ways – but we can't forget offline. That includes being literate or aware of human nature, being media savvy, and being able to work effectively in both the online and offline worlds which are different.

Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. Crown Publishers, United States, New York.

Shirky, C. (2009). Here comes everybody, the power of organizing without organizations.  Penguin Group, New York

Kony 2012 Second Text for Assignment 2

KONY 2012 on Vimeo

The video highlights how quickly people can be called to action using technology.  We have been asked what is old about new media – this video is a good illustration. A marketing teacher in my college posted it for our students and noted,

“I want you to see how he's presented it. Break it down: A well thought out storyboard containing the 5 'Why's' and the 'How', compelling images, quality writing and use of graphics. Stats are researched and presented in many ways to keep you glued to the set … Crude images such as a simple printed email with highlighted components, can become a bold message. His message is loud and clear in the way it is presented, and is a compelling call to action…When working with layouts for your marketing, advertising and social media material, take a look at all the great visual techniques he's incorporated to tell the story” (McLeod, 2012).

These techniques to tell a story have been around for ages but now almost anyone is able to put them to use and reach larger audiences than ever before.

This level of attention could not have been achieved by previous generations.  A television commercial might reach as many viewers but the cost would likely be out of the reach of an organization like Invisible Children.  I can choose to go back and view that video as often as I like, strengthening the message, and I can forward it to as many people as are in my network – and so can others. Neither of these are possible with television commercials.

Invisible Children accomplished its goal to make people aware of the situation.  That awareness is a part of its mission which states, 

“1) Make the world aware of the LRA. This includes making documentary films and touring them around the world so that they are seen for free by millions of people” (Invisible Children website, para. 4).

But some of the controversy that has followed the posting highlights another phenomena that is also not new.  Despite the fact I think as a public we are less naïve than perhaps a couple generations ago, we can still be swayed by a well-designed and communicated message.  The mainstream media has picked up the story and they provide a credible source of commentary on Kony 2012.

A columnist in the Winnipeg Free Press writes, “Congratulations Invisible Children, Joseph Kony is now famous. Mission accomplished. But now we are all aware, it's time to get informed.

The only thing more dangerous than not knowing anything is thinking you know everything” (Cook, 2012 para. 13-14).

Cook disputes the number of children that Invisible Children claims have been taken by Kony’s army; “Experts agree the involvement of children in the LRA has been vastly exaggerated. Studies show the prevalence of child soldiers in the LRA has been consistently over-reported” (2012, para. 7).

I don’t think the number of children is an issue here – the facts are known about this army and the world does not dispute the atrocities Kony has perpetrated.  For instance, Washington Post writer  Michael Gerson notes, “Even a diminished Kony is dangerous. And the evil of the man himself can scarcely be exaggerated. In Uganda, I’ve met former LRA child soldiers who were forced to kill their own parents and neighbors in order to sever their ties to community and sympathy” (2012, para. 7).

But Cook’s point is well taken – how many people investigated the validity behind the message before clicking “like” or replying. Today’s tools make it easy for anyone to develop and distribute a compelling message that is a complete falsehood.  In the wrong hands, this access seems scary to say the least.  How many people have sent money to hucksters due to Internet pleas?

Consider the radio message on Sunday, October 30, 1938 when “news alerts announced the arrival of Martians…Many ran out of their homes screaming while others packed up their cars and fled.  Though what the radio listeners heard was a portion of Orson Welles' adaptation of the well-known book, War of the Worlds by H. G. Wells, many of the listeners believed what they heard on the radio was real” (Rosenburg, 2012, para 1).

The need for media literacy has only grown and is a part of the transliteracy we need to develop – to be literate, we need to develop a sense of how to judge and assess the messages that come our way. We need to be even more media savvy.

An article in Canadian Living features an interview with Debbie Gordon, managing editor at Mediacs.ca, a website that features media literacy workshops.  Referring to the so-called wardrobe malfunction of Janet Jackson’s at the Superbowl which created a furor among parents who were upset that their children saw it, she said,  "Media savvy kids were able to see the media toolbox hard at work during that halftime show - they weren't buying that message"(Desjardine, 2012, para 4).

Such media savvy training is essential so that the ‘smart’ mobs that are created with such messages on the Internet are indeed smart.

Cook, P. (2012).  Maybe invisible children aren’t there, Winnipeg Free Press, March 10, 2012. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/%20opinion/westview/maybe-invisible-children-arent-there-142188783.html

Desjardine, E. (2012) Making kids media savvy. Canadian Living, retrieved March 10, 2012 from http://www.canadianliving.com/moms/parenting/making_kids_media_ savvy.php

Gerson, M. (2012). The controversy over Kony 2012. Washington Post, March 3, 2012. Retrieved March 10, 2012 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/the-controversy-over-kony-2012/2012/03/10/%20gIQAzc6M3%20R_%20blog.html

Invisible Children (2012). From Critiques Page,  http://s3.amazonaws.com/www.%20invisiblechildren.com/critiques.html Retrieved March 10, 2012.

McLeod, C. (2012).  Video gone viral: Kony 2012. Linked-In IMC Group. Retrieved March 10, 2012.

Rosenberg, J. (2012).  War of the worlds radio broadcast causes panic. About.com 20^th Century History. Retrieved March 10, 2012 http://history1900s.about.com/od/ 1930s/a/warofworlds.htm

Connected Citizens, First Text for Assignment 2

Knight Foundation | Connected Citizens [report]

Connected Citizens -  The power, peril and potential of networks by Diana Scearce highlights a study by the Knight Foundation about networks, “groups that are creatively connecting citizens” (Scearce, 2012, forward).  Rheingold uses the term smart mob to describe networks: “Smart mobs emerge when communication and computing technologies amplify human talents for cooperation” (http://www.smartmobs.com/, para 1).

The Knight Foundation is a funding organization that states on its website that it “supports transformational ideas that promote quality journalism, advance media innovation, engage communities and foster the arts” (para 1 About the Foundation). 

The report echoes the caution that Rheingold states in his MIT presentation in 2002, that the smart mobs will “not always necessarily be peaceful and democratic.. (the) future won’t be all progress and light” (2002, MIT video).  Connected Citizens reports, “What’s less clear at this point is whether this interconnectedness, decentralization and transparency is—and will be—good or bad for the health of communities” (Scearce, 2011, pg 1).

The Knight Foundation, with its partner the Monitor Institute studied more than 70 projects, to determine whether the “potential of networks (is to) create stronger bonds or to split us apart” (Scearce, 2011, Forward). 

It cautions, “there are downsides to this interdependence as well. Network con­nections can be used to hoard power rather than distribute it. Living in dense and information-rich webs presents real dangers of narrowing rather than broadening our worldviews because we’re forced to filter in order to manage the overwhelming amounts of information.

“Will our public conversations be more polarized and fragmented, as people choose to connect with others who are like-minded? Or will we see more bridging of differences? With growing digital connectivity increasing the possibilities for borderless communities, will citizens have stronger or weaker ties to their neighbors? Finally, how widespread will the skills be for artfully using the tools to channel this wealth of connectivity toward social change?” (Scearce, 2011, pg. 2).  

The report noted the following patterns in successful networks:

Listening to and consulting the crowds

Designing for serendipity

Bridging differences

Catalyzing mutual support

Providing handrails for collective action(pg. 7).

The report also asks some key questions:  

How much trust and mistrust will here be?

- These are addressed through bridging differences and deliberately connecting people with different perspectives by successful networks

What will be the nature of public participation and the public conversation?  

- These are addressed by designs for serendipity and catalyzing mutual support by successful networks

What will be the impact of technology on (the quality of) civic information and engagement?

- The report makes the point that sometimes it is wise to “smart source” rather than crowdsource.  “since the input you get from the crowds is shaped by who’s participating, a diversity of perspectives may not be reflected and there’s always a risk that the loudest or most shocking messages will grab attention” (pg. 9).

What will be the nature of leadership in a network-centric world?

- These are the “handrails” of successful networks.

The report quotes Harold Rheingold:  “The critical uncertainty about collective action and the question, ‘Is the Internet and mobile device era good for us or bad for us?’ depends on the percentage of the population who know what to do with the tools. The knowledge itself isn’t a capital intensive resource. How you get it to people depends on institutions. How will learners organize together, and how will they be facilitated?” (pg. 29).

 The report describes 3 compelling pictures of what 2015 could look like, with both positive and negative repercussions. For instance, in Digging Foxholes, people retreat to protect themselves from governments that use social media channels for their own ends.  In Know Your Neighbour,  people become myopic and don’t see new ideas from outside the network they know. In MobileMe, the hyper-connectivity results in a world where your home is not defined by geography and the local infrastructure deteriorates – children attend school online and the local system fails, for instance.   The report is not suggesting that one of these scenarios will be exactly what happens and each is an undiluted look at the pros and cons of each – but we can see elements of each in 2012.

  

I think all of this highlights the need to be transliterate, across the new technologies, but also in traditional face to face connections, in ‘reading’ and understanding human behaviour.  This means preparing current generations of learners to be fluent (transliterate) in this new reality.  Jenkins reflects the gap with his statement,  “If we were to start from scratch and design an educational system to meet the needs of the culture we have just described, it would look very little like the current school system” (2006, para. 14). 

The solution is to educate ourselves (and our children) about networks, how they work, how to make connections, how to recognize the downsides, and how to grow them.  It seems to me that not connecting is not a solution.   This rings of the lesson we learned in our first MACT institute that we can not not communicate.

Jenkins, Henry. (2006).“Eight traits of the new media landscape,” confessions of an aca-fan. Retrieved March 8, 2012 from: http://www.henryjenkins.org/2006 /11/eight_traits_of_the_new_media.html.

Knight Foundation. (2012) website Retrieved March 8, 2012 from www.knightfoundation.org

Rheingold, H. (2002).  “Smart mobs: The next social revolution.”  MIT World. [Video file]. Retrieved March 8, 2012 from: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/22

Scearce, D. (2011). Connected citizens, The power, peril and potential of networks. John S and James L Knight Foundations. Retrieved March 8, 2012  http://www.connectedcitizens.net/.

Digital Literacy & Me

When I first read the instructions for Assignment # 1, I felt that drop in the pit of my stomach that comes when I think I am into something I can’t accomplish.  A podcast? The idea that I might have to quit this course and signup for another elective did cross my mind. 

But after a skype call with a group of classmates who have been more instrumental in getting me through this program than they may realize, I felt re-nourished and challenged in a good way.  

So I spent one weekend teaching myself i-movie on my Mac.  And figuring out how to load it to YouTube.  To digital natives, that is not such a big deal, but it was for me. In fact, this assignment has helped me to break through another digital barrier.

So, I present this with some trepidation as well as apologies to any professional videographers out there. I remember when computers first gave people access to different fonts, styles and colours and they produced horrid-looking publications. I have done just that but with i-movie.  There are some cheesy moments but I decided to go over the top a bit in lieu of having fined tuned professional skills.  I will have to wait for my next production to fine-tune the editing skills – I can see the errors in this one and hope you can forgive this was produced early in my learning curve. 

In the end, I hope the message about my transliteracy life (which I thought was a joke at first but after finishing this, perhaps I am more transliterate than I realized) is clear to those who watch.

My Transliteracy Life