Friday, 30 August 2013

Facebook: Perception vs. Reality


Facebook: Perception vs. Reality

 

“Humans know the world through sensation, perception, and conception… A sense of place is created through humans perceiving and constructing that location.” (Van Luyn, A. 2013).  Perception seemed to be a reoccurring concept in the last two weeks. In last week’s reading ‘The Songlines’, Chatwin stated that “to exist is to be perceived” (Chatwin, B. 1987). I began to wonder, that if perception determined place, and existence, then how am I perceived on Facebook? Do people perceive me as my true self, or do I cease to exist? How do I know what I perceive is real?

Our actions on Facebook are constantly watched by our peers, and, what they see from us is how they determine our online identity. Your online profile, or, the virtual you, becomes the real you in someone else’s perspective. For example, I never usually post any statues, or photos, or share any videos on Facebook; I just sit back and watch others, or interact through messaging. I may be perceived as quiet, or shy by those who I don’t publically interact with, however, the people I message will perceive me differently. Other people are like this; where they are perceive different ways on Facebook depending on how they choose to interact. When people post pictures of their conversations with others on Facebook, it could be assumed that they are exposing their ‘real’ self, but, what if it is just another shade of their virtual self? With the constant use of technology, it gets difficult to determine what is real and what is virtual.

Language use also plays a role in perceiving a person’s ‘real’ self. Tuan (1991) states that there are different ways by which language contributes toward the making of place. For example, warm conversation between friends can make the place itself seem warm; by contrast, malicious speech has the power to destroy a places reputation and thereby its visibility. In terms of Facebook, those who post interesting, funny, or nice statues, pictures and videos make Facebook an enjoyable place to be when you want to see what people are up to, however, people who constantly post negative or annoying things could make you perceive that person as whiney and you lose interest in what they have to post and eventually begin to avoid them online. However, different people react differently to the language people use, and how that language creates their online identity.

In terms of being ‘real’ on Facebook, I like to think that I am. As I mentioned before, I don’t usually post things of Facebook and in contrast to real life, I’m not loud, and I don’t draw attention to myself (often). I prefer to have a chat through messages on Facebook, because if I need to communicate with someone, I’d do it personally, just like I would away from the computer screen.

Steve Fox is editorial director of PC World and wrote a small article called “Facebook vs. Reality: Who Needs to Get a Life?” If you’d like to read the article, go to http://ehis.ebscohost.com to see how Fox compares reality and Facebook.

 

REFERENCES:

Chatwin, B. (1987). The Songlines. Chapter 3, pp 11 – 15. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd

Tuan, Y. (1991). Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Taylor& Francis, LTD. Retrieved from: http://learnjcu.edu.au

Van Luyn, A. 2013. BA1002: Our Space: Networks, Narratives, and the Making of Place, Week 5 Notes (PowerPoint). Retrieved from: https://learnjcu.jcu.edu.au


Article Link:



IMAGE CREDITS:

Thursday, 29 August 2013

YouTubes/'sChanging Opinions



“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

This is Article 19 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Van Luyn quoted Pierre Bourdieu when she said, “Those who have the right to speak can be thought to have cultural capital” (2013). This quote is what led to the research in finding out what exactly our ‘rights’ are. You can click on this link HERE to read about the full history of the UDHR and find out what the other 29 articles or ‘rights’ are. Every human being has the ‘right’ to express their thoughts, and YouTube is a platform that is used as a communication device. YouTube allows for members to express their opinions, voices, thoughts and ideas, in any digital media sharing they choose; often through vlogs (video blogs), parodies, commenting, interviews, cartoons, ‘ranting,’ music, scenes or scenarios, and any other digital creative form that is thought of.

The reading this week was all about language and narrative. Tuan (1991) said “…that speech and the written word [is to be] considered integral….language is important – indeed central – because humans are language animals, and language is a force that all of us use everyday to build, sustain and destroy.” I believe this relates to YouTube because the various videos that are watched can ‘build, sustain and destroy’ the viewer’s opinions or thoughts on a certain topic. Our environment often unconsciously influences us and therefore, even if a viewer believes that their opinion have not been affected, the video may have just put a thought in the viewer’s mind that can eventually strengthen, weaken or change their whole perspective.

As a YouTube member, the option is available to directly comment on the video (if it has been enabled) to like or dislike the video, or to upload a ‘video response’ expressing your own voice on the same topic. As Tuan (1991) implied, we ‘discuss’ how something should be done, we ‘recommend’ ideas that worked or ‘suggest’ things to disregard, we have a ‘conversation’ with others, and sometimes we have ‘confrontations.’ These are a few of the ways we communicate our thoughts in society that may have a subtle influence.

The ideas and thoughts that are expressed through each YouTube video can be said to be apart of our language; it’s a form of communication that makes changes happen.

References

Tuan, Y. (1991). Annals of the Association of American Georgraphers. Taylor & Francis, LTD. Retrieved from: http://learnjcu.edu.au

United Nations. (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Van Luyn, A. (2013). BA1002: Our Space: Networks, Narrratives and The Making Of Place, Lecture 5: Stories and Places. [Notes] Retrieved from: http://learnjcu.edu.au

Image Credit



What's in a name? 



While perusing my chosen social network site Soundcloud, and in between a hardcore electronic  headbash and a funky cumbia jam, I realised that a lot of power can be wielded by a name.  Tuan (1991) claims that the right to name is empowerment, and this is certainly the case when it comes to music on Soundcloud.  As I scroll down the page through what could be thousands of songs, my eyes pick out certain words, titles of songs, that may appeal to me.  I realise that a lot of the songs I've been listening to I chose because I liked the sound of the name...it had a certain something I was drawn to.  

We know that 'space' becomes 'place' as we attach meaning to a landscape (Week 5 Lecture notes) and we also know that music has the power to evoke the strongest of emotions.  The way music can connect us to a certain time or place is like a kind of alchemy.  Indeed there need not be any words in the music for this magic to occur, but the music always has a name and the name is of incredible importance.  Without the name, the music may be lost to us, we may forget the sound or the memory of the song unknown may fade. 

Tuan (1991)speaks of the metaphorical power of language and such is music!  Through first internal dialog, then the spoken sharing of ideas, the physical processes of making music (as like most things) are made and, in true humanistic fashion, a name is then given to the finished product.  The name becomes a symbolic identity of the artwork and is just as important as the form it describes.  There is power and meaning in a name and much to be said about the choices that we make, either consciously or unconsciously, based on names. 

To see an excellent example of the power of words and music joined with political and social commentary and completely in relation to the BA1002 course, check out this episode of "Rap News". Enjoy! 


Over & Out!

Lunar (Vivian Davey) 



References:

Week 5 lecture slides (2013). BA1002: Our Space: Networks, Narratives and the making of Place, week 5 lecture slides [Powerpoint slides].  Retrieved from https://learnjcu.jcu.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_312_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_42849_1%26url%3D  

Tuan, Y-F (1991). Language and the making of place: A narrative-descriptive approach. Annals of the Association of American Georgraphers, 81(4),pp 684-696.  

Photo credit: Big Sur – Aug06, originally uploaded by Waldo647.
    

   

Virtual Reality




Image Courtesy of: http://wallpaperswide.com/virtual_reality-wallpapers.html
 We live in an era of documentation. At the crux of it, an insatiable desire to be seen and heard underlies the operation of users within virtual networks. This correlates with Foucault’s Panopticon theory of internalized self-surveillance (Turkle, 1995). This link is drawn as this desire is commonplace and at its nucleus is about being seen as normal. 

Theoretically information presented to the public sphere is of the user’s ‘best self’. While users construct their identity through the ways in which they express themselves, other users perceive the information put out into the public consciousness and create their identity through perception. This is largely problematic as how we intend to be perceived may not be how those around us interpret our actions (Van Luyn, 2013). 

I’ve spoken extensively in past blogs about determining the scope of my virtual network, Snapchat, within the confines I am bound by. Moving forward with this idea, the ‘me’ presented to those I interact with in my virtual network is not the real me, and neither is the ‘you’ you present. The physical does not translate to virtual at all. Inherent to personal face-to-face communication are things out of reach to virtuality, such as intonation, mannerisms and gestures, facial expressions and context for conversations. Despite conflicting evidence, it has emerged that a minority of people feel comfortable revealing intimate details of themselves online as opposed to real life. Speaking for myself, I feel less comfortable sharing personal information online with those I interact with. I find that if the interaction itself does not emanate from a real life discussion, comments I make can be taken out of context and perceived in an incorrect manner as pure written text lacks the depth and clarity of intention afforded with real life conversation. The intricacies of conversation are lynchpins of human interaction and lost within cyberspace – “the small seemingly inconsequential happenings will…quickly fade from memory if [they] were not recreated” (Tuan, 1991).

I feel as though I am as ‘real’ with the version of myself I present in Snapchat, as I am presenting to an audience I’ve created myself – who by effect I feel comfortable with. Those I socialize with are consistent to the character they present. I do find as the gaps between virtual and reality are still (in my mind at least) extensive it is impossible for one to be their ‘true’ self.

Until Next Time,

Gabriel

References:
1.       Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York, USA: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
2.       Van Luyn, A. (2013). BA1002: Our Space: Networks, narratives and the making of place, Lecture 5: Stories and Places. [Notes] Retrieved from http://learnjcu.edu.au
3.       Tuan, Y. (1991). Language and The Making of Place: A Narrative- Descriptive Approach, Annals of the Association of American Georgraphers. Taylor & Francis, LTD

Image Credit:
[Image] (2009) Retrieved from: http://wallpaperswide.com/virtual_reality-wallpapers.html