What exactly is character based on? People can be so different when it comes to that. I believe that character is determined by a person's past experiences, their habits, their upbringing, and the memories. Actions aren't precisely predetermined by these things, but they certainly play a large role. How people react in different situations is so different. A little kid is likely to react completely differently from an adult when faced with something funny. Character is probably heavily determined by age and experience. For little kids, everything is new, so they react more. If something is new to an older person, they'll probably draw on their previous knowledge of anything relating to it, and react more rationally. What if something happens spontaneously, like a car wreck? With instinctive reactions like the ones that might occur during a crash, things can still change. A man who was in the military will probably react differently from, say, a 23-year-old who's in college studying communications or something.
I dunno. It's just interesting to look at people's everyday actions.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Power of Context
I think that what people do and how they react is greatly affected by their environment, in addition to their own personal inclinations. I was recently reading a summary of a psychological study (Yes, this sort of thing seems to happen often when your father is a psychology professor), the Milgram Experiment, conducted some time ago that looked at the power of context and how far people will go if directed by someone who appears to have authority. I think it seems pretty interesting, so I looked it up. Here's a good summary- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
After the volunteers were assured that they wouldn't be held responsible for anything that happened, most continued. A tiny miniority didn't so much as question the authority figure, they just kept cranking up the electrical shock level and administering the shocks with seeming determined enjoyment. What does that say about humanity? It's true that most people will follow the directions of an authority figure, even if they're wrong. The experiment was conducted to see if Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann and his accomplices could have just been following orders during the Holocaust, committing millions of atrocities on the orders of their own authority figure.
Milgram, who conducted the experiment, later wrote a book, The Perils of Obedience. In it he said "Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."
It's interesting to think about what you yourself might have done in the same circumstances. Strange how people in power can control others so thoroughly.
After the volunteers were assured that they wouldn't be held responsible for anything that happened, most continued. A tiny miniority didn't so much as question the authority figure, they just kept cranking up the electrical shock level and administering the shocks with seeming determined enjoyment. What does that say about humanity? It's true that most people will follow the directions of an authority figure, even if they're wrong. The experiment was conducted to see if Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann and his accomplices could have just been following orders during the Holocaust, committing millions of atrocities on the orders of their own authority figure.
Milgram, who conducted the experiment, later wrote a book, The Perils of Obedience. In it he said "Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."
It's interesting to think about what you yourself might have done in the same circumstances. Strange how people in power can control others so thoroughly.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
DO NOT WANT
People who obsess over stupid things to the point where they write idiotic fanfictions and believe that the characters are real, and people who think that they're really animals trapped inside human bodies.
These people need to be deported to Antarctica and prevented from reproducing.
If you're not familiar with Final Fantasy, I definitely do not blame you. I have never seen any of the movies or played any of the games. However, I frequent a certain art web site where it is impossible to survive without some knowledge of such things, and I have thus acquired this particular gem...Sephiroth is a villain from the Final Fantasy games. He is angsty, white-haired, dresses in black leather, and is rather annoying.
I recently encountered somebody online who belives that she is married to Sephiroth on the astral plane.
Seriously.
You can't make this crap up.
I won't even attempt to explain this idiocy in its entirety. Suffice it to say that she claims to have had "extremely clear dreams/visions" in which she has met Sephiroth (who, I might remind you, is completely-made up). She claims that he is really a seraphim or some crap and is only in the games and movies because he appeared in a dream to their creator. She claims to have married him, and that he teaches her martial arts. Or something. Her proof of her martial arts prowess being that she kicked some poor guy (who wasn't even talking to her) in the balls.
Yeeeah.
The second thing...People who really, honestly, with all their little emo bleeding hearts believe that they are really animals trapped inside human bodies. Or rather, anthropomorphic animals. The usual is a wolf or a fox. They usually have beads and crap in their fur; are usually weird unnatural colors like lime green; have huge amounts af multicolored anime hair despite being, you know, ANIMALS; and for some dumb reason, have tattoos that can be seen through the fur on their bodies. These people usually call their animal selves their "fursona". What. The. Hell.
These people are insane.
They are insane.
I'm not saying they're all bad people. Many are quite nice.
But the fact that they think they're a blue wolf furry with earrings, tattoos, and red eyes should be huge sign reading "I AM COMPLETELY OFF MY NUT."
I don't know about you, but I know I'm human because I can talk, and if I take off my clothes, I'm naked. Not covered in fur.
some particularly good examples of the insanity--
http://vanillakitsune.deviantart.com/art/Guyver47-Commish-43282656
http://vanillakitsune.deviantart.com/art/Hey-there-Yuna-60928790
http://vanillakitsune.deviantart.com/art/Shivia-Commish-48445750
Apparently, this artist doesn't need to know anatomy. She just covers it up with fifteen pounds of hair.
No one will get this post at all. It was just something I wanted to get off my chest.
Couldn't post it on my art gallery because some purple emo wolf furry would have undoubtedly commented saying "HAY U BTCH UR SO DUMB. I HAET U. IM A WOLF. SHUTUP."
Probably, no one cares. We're not even gonna talk about the girl who thinks she's the offspring of a Welsh corgi and a Shire horse.
These people need to be deported to Antarctica and prevented from reproducing.
If you're not familiar with Final Fantasy, I definitely do not blame you. I have never seen any of the movies or played any of the games. However, I frequent a certain art web site where it is impossible to survive without some knowledge of such things, and I have thus acquired this particular gem...Sephiroth is a villain from the Final Fantasy games. He is angsty, white-haired, dresses in black leather, and is rather annoying.
I recently encountered somebody online who belives that she is married to Sephiroth on the astral plane.
Seriously.
You can't make this crap up.
I won't even attempt to explain this idiocy in its entirety. Suffice it to say that she claims to have had "extremely clear dreams/visions" in which she has met Sephiroth (who, I might remind you, is completely-made up). She claims that he is really a seraphim or some crap and is only in the games and movies because he appeared in a dream to their creator. She claims to have married him, and that he teaches her martial arts. Or something. Her proof of her martial arts prowess being that she kicked some poor guy (who wasn't even talking to her) in the balls.
Yeeeah.
The second thing...People who really, honestly, with all their little emo bleeding hearts believe that they are really animals trapped inside human bodies. Or rather, anthropomorphic animals. The usual is a wolf or a fox. They usually have beads and crap in their fur; are usually weird unnatural colors like lime green; have huge amounts af multicolored anime hair despite being, you know, ANIMALS; and for some dumb reason, have tattoos that can be seen through the fur on their bodies. These people usually call their animal selves their "fursona". What. The. Hell.
These people are insane.
They are insane.
I'm not saying they're all bad people. Many are quite nice.
But the fact that they think they're a blue wolf furry with earrings, tattoos, and red eyes should be huge sign reading "I AM COMPLETELY OFF MY NUT."
I don't know about you, but I know I'm human because I can talk, and if I take off my clothes, I'm naked. Not covered in fur.
some particularly good examples of the insanity--
http://vanillakitsune.deviantart.com/art/Guyver47-Commish-43282656
http://vanillakitsune.deviantart.com/art/Hey-there-Yuna-60928790
http://vanillakitsune.deviantart.com/art/Shivia-Commish-48445750
Apparently, this artist doesn't need to know anatomy. She just covers it up with fifteen pounds of hair.
No one will get this post at all. It was just something I wanted to get off my chest.
Couldn't post it on my art gallery because some purple emo wolf furry would have undoubtedly commented saying "HAY U BTCH UR SO DUMB. I HAET U. IM A WOLF. SHUTUP."
Probably, no one cares. We're not even gonna talk about the girl who thinks she's the offspring of a Welsh corgi and a Shire horse.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Sesame Street
The Stickiness Factor...It's fairly obvious what it is, isn't it? It's the thing that makes things stick in people's minds. It can be repetition, or just something interesting about a particular ad or preview or show.
Gladwell talks about Sesame Street. Ah, brings back my sweet, sweet childhood in the nineties.
Which sucked, by the way.
Sesame Street was really the first show to pander to children. It pioneered the concept of learning through television. The reason it actually worked was because it was interesting-it had cute little muppets, bright colors, and cookies! What's not to love?- and dumbed things down so that little kids could understand them enough to make it easier for them to learn similar lessons being taught in schools.
Another relic of my sixteen years-oh, archaic, I know-Old school Disney movies.
When I was little, I did not reside in reality.
I, little by little, created my own plane of existence.
Much of this was drawn from the faery stories introduced, retold, or invented by that wonderful little oasis in thought. I loved Alice in Wonderland. The Aristocats? The Jungle Book? Hercules? Damn skippy. Fantasia, the hardcore one with the flying horses? GOD, pure nectar. I loved it. (Except Snow White. I hated that one. Damn scary evil trees.)
These movies were, and still are, so popular among younger children because they have easy-to-understand plots, appealing characters, you name it. They stick because they pander to their audience. And it works really, really well. I still love watching some of the old Disney movies. The animation is beautiful. And I love Hercules. I saw it for the first time when I was living in Australia. I guess it had an impact. Disney needs to start doing more 2D movies.
On a sidenote- I nearly died when I saw the movie Enchanted. It was an okay movie, I'd probably watch it again. Mostly for the animation at the beginning. Oh, the animation...It was so PRETTY.
I am probably one of two people on this planet who freaked out about this. The other was sitting right beside me and practically drooling in my ear.
So, apparently, that's what makes the stickiness factor work on geeks like me.
Yeeeeah.
Gladwell talks about Sesame Street. Ah, brings back my sweet, sweet childhood in the nineties.
Which sucked, by the way.
Sesame Street was really the first show to pander to children. It pioneered the concept of learning through television. The reason it actually worked was because it was interesting-it had cute little muppets, bright colors, and cookies! What's not to love?- and dumbed things down so that little kids could understand them enough to make it easier for them to learn similar lessons being taught in schools.
Another relic of my sixteen years-oh, archaic, I know-Old school Disney movies.
When I was little, I did not reside in reality.
I, little by little, created my own plane of existence.
Much of this was drawn from the faery stories introduced, retold, or invented by that wonderful little oasis in thought. I loved Alice in Wonderland. The Aristocats? The Jungle Book? Hercules? Damn skippy. Fantasia, the hardcore one with the flying horses? GOD, pure nectar. I loved it. (Except Snow White. I hated that one. Damn scary evil trees.)
These movies were, and still are, so popular among younger children because they have easy-to-understand plots, appealing characters, you name it. They stick because they pander to their audience. And it works really, really well. I still love watching some of the old Disney movies. The animation is beautiful. And I love Hercules. I saw it for the first time when I was living in Australia. I guess it had an impact. Disney needs to start doing more 2D movies.
On a sidenote- I nearly died when I saw the movie Enchanted. It was an okay movie, I'd probably watch it again. Mostly for the animation at the beginning. Oh, the animation...It was so PRETTY.
I am probably one of two people on this planet who freaked out about this. The other was sitting right beside me and practically drooling in my ear.
So, apparently, that's what makes the stickiness factor work on geeks like me.
Yeeeeah.
Forwards
Don't send me forwards.
Probably, posting this won't have much of an effect on the people who do send them to me, since that list consists of about 4 people, and none of them care enough to read my blog. They just like having my name on their lists so they can forward me badly-spelled emails about puppies dying and IT'S ALL MY FAULT THEY ARE IF I DON'T FORWARD THIS. The four people...
-One of my little sister's obnoxious, wapanese, butt-licking Naruto fantard-friends who got my email address in some nefarious, fantard way. Maybe she used her curse mark or mad kung-fu skills or whateverthehell they use in Naruto.
-One is some girl I knew in third grade and somehow thinks I'm her best friend, despite the fact that the last time I actually saw her in person was in 2004. She also can't seem to get it through her pointy little head that if someone still doesn't pick up the phone the 38th time you've called them in the last two hours, they probably don't want to talk to you.
-One is someone I met at a CCAD class. I don't personally hold the forward thing against her, since she doesn't pass the really annoying ones. She just passes multiple ones OVER AND OVER again involving KAWAII DESUUUUUUUU puppies and kittens and crippled six-year olds with leukimia, polio, and severe peanut allergies who I will somehow be helping by annoying all three of the people on my contact list with them.
Oh, and one time, she passed me one with a smarmy animation of one of Santa's elves.
Mooning me.
The pinnacle of holiday taste, to be sure.
-The fourth is someone with whom I'd rather not be associated, but who somehow obtained my email address anyway. Weird how that happens. Anyway, she appears to believe all that crap about "hay gais if u dont pass this mssage on in 7 min. u will become ugly and haeted and never find luv and a bird will poo on ur head to."
I think it's funny how these messages are always, without exception, badly spelled and/or badly punctuated. And somehow, some people still buy them.
Irony, I adore thee.
This particular person also enjoys creepily stalking college kids she met at OMGBIBLECAMPPLZ last summer, and sees the shows Lost and Heroes for the deftly plotted masterpieces that they so obviously are.
Forwards are not worth reading. Do not send me forwards. If I get sent one, it had better be relevant, or it had better be really damn funny. If those "u will be ugly and haeted if u don't annoy everyone u know with this emial" things really worked, by now I would be bald, ugly, afflicted with obscenely bad luck, and completely friendless.
Oh yeah, and a cement truck would have run me over, too.
It's annoying. All I read is "Hi! Here's a faceful of coercion! You had better threaten ten more people with it or Something Bad will happen to you!!!11one kthxlolz!".
Really, if I get one more email involving somebody complaining because while they were asleep, EVIL PLASTIC SURGEONS came and stole their thighs and buttocks, replacing them with disgusting ones "the texture of oatmeal"; and then complaining more because they thought they recognized their ass on Pamela Anderson, I am going to bang my head into the wall until I concuss myself.
Probably, posting this won't have much of an effect on the people who do send them to me, since that list consists of about 4 people, and none of them care enough to read my blog. They just like having my name on their lists so they can forward me badly-spelled emails about puppies dying and IT'S ALL MY FAULT THEY ARE IF I DON'T FORWARD THIS. The four people...
-One of my little sister's obnoxious, wapanese, butt-licking Naruto fantard-friends who got my email address in some nefarious, fantard way. Maybe she used her curse mark or mad kung-fu skills or whateverthehell they use in Naruto.
-One is some girl I knew in third grade and somehow thinks I'm her best friend, despite the fact that the last time I actually saw her in person was in 2004. She also can't seem to get it through her pointy little head that if someone still doesn't pick up the phone the 38th time you've called them in the last two hours, they probably don't want to talk to you.
-One is someone I met at a CCAD class. I don't personally hold the forward thing against her, since she doesn't pass the really annoying ones. She just passes multiple ones OVER AND OVER again involving KAWAII DESUUUUUUUU puppies and kittens and crippled six-year olds with leukimia, polio, and severe peanut allergies who I will somehow be helping by annoying all three of the people on my contact list with them.
Oh, and one time, she passed me one with a smarmy animation of one of Santa's elves.
Mooning me.
The pinnacle of holiday taste, to be sure.
-The fourth is someone with whom I'd rather not be associated, but who somehow obtained my email address anyway. Weird how that happens. Anyway, she appears to believe all that crap about "hay gais if u dont pass this mssage on in 7 min. u will become ugly and haeted and never find luv and a bird will poo on ur head to."
I think it's funny how these messages are always, without exception, badly spelled and/or badly punctuated. And somehow, some people still buy them.
Irony, I adore thee.
This particular person also enjoys creepily stalking college kids she met at OMGBIBLECAMPPLZ last summer, and sees the shows Lost and Heroes for the deftly plotted masterpieces that they so obviously are.
Forwards are not worth reading. Do not send me forwards. If I get sent one, it had better be relevant, or it had better be really damn funny. If those "u will be ugly and haeted if u don't annoy everyone u know with this emial" things really worked, by now I would be bald, ugly, afflicted with obscenely bad luck, and completely friendless.
Oh yeah, and a cement truck would have run me over, too.
It's annoying. All I read is "Hi! Here's a faceful of coercion! You had better threaten ten more people with it or Something Bad will happen to you!!!11one kthxlolz!".
Really, if I get one more email involving somebody complaining because while they were asleep, EVIL PLASTIC SURGEONS came and stole their thighs and buttocks, replacing them with disgusting ones "the texture of oatmeal"; and then complaining more because they thought they recognized their ass on Pamela Anderson, I am going to bang my head into the wall until I concuss myself.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Interesting Title.
Another post about The Tipping Point...
Gladwell describes Connectors, the people who link us with the world, (citing Paul Revere, a Dallas businessman, and others.); Mavens, the information specialists; and Salesmen, the people who sell us on the ideas behind epidemics.
Since the internet makes it so much easier to share and procure information now, shouldn't there be more epidemics? Arguably, there are. Look in any store, or even at the feet of a group of teenagers...Odds are that at least two out of ten girls in a group will be wearing some similar, popular kind of shoes, or maybe jeans, or even coats. Probably, they bought them on the recommendation of a friend (Salesman?), who found out about the shoes through someone at the store (Maven?). Alternately, the friend might be the Connector, and so on.
Another example is American Idol. This one is definitely more internet-oriented, since you see ads for it on every other site you visit. The reason it's so popular is, frankly, beyond me. If I want to hear crappy singing, I can drop in on the 8th period choir. If I want to hear decent singing, I can turn on my iPod.
I, and quite a few of my friends, watch only the auditions. Because they're really damn funny.
Cruel, certainly, but funny. Maybe it's another of those Americans-are-drawn-to-the-pain-of-others things, but it's also a testification as to how powerful the Connector-Maven-Salesman system can be.
Gladwell describes Connectors, the people who link us with the world, (citing Paul Revere, a Dallas businessman, and others.); Mavens, the information specialists; and Salesmen, the people who sell us on the ideas behind epidemics.
Since the internet makes it so much easier to share and procure information now, shouldn't there be more epidemics? Arguably, there are. Look in any store, or even at the feet of a group of teenagers...Odds are that at least two out of ten girls in a group will be wearing some similar, popular kind of shoes, or maybe jeans, or even coats. Probably, they bought them on the recommendation of a friend (Salesman?), who found out about the shoes through someone at the store (Maven?). Alternately, the friend might be the Connector, and so on.
Another example is American Idol. This one is definitely more internet-oriented, since you see ads for it on every other site you visit. The reason it's so popular is, frankly, beyond me. If I want to hear crappy singing, I can drop in on the 8th period choir. If I want to hear decent singing, I can turn on my iPod.
I, and quite a few of my friends, watch only the auditions. Because they're really damn funny.
Cruel, certainly, but funny. Maybe it's another of those Americans-are-drawn-to-the-pain-of-others things, but it's also a testification as to how powerful the Connector-Maven-Salesman system can be.
Socially Inept?
In Gladwell's The Tipping Point, he poses the question of how all human beings are connected. Odds are, each of your friends has a group of friends who you don't know, and each of them has a group of friends, et cetera. If this went on long enough, doubtless most of the people in America, if not the world, would somehow be connected.
Gladwell gives examples of a number of tests, one of which he conducted himself. This one involved administering a selection of names (about 200?). For each person one knows with that surname, one gets a point. The test is used to estimate roughly how many friends and acquaintances one has, and consequently, how social a person is.
I got about 4 points. One of them was for my third-grade teacher.
This either says that I'm really lazy and don't know a lot of people's last names, or that I'm really, really introverted and don't like people much, since the average score for college students was 41.
Gladwell mentions that he has administered the test to about 400 people. There were about 24 who scored below 20, around 8 scored above 90, and around 4 scored above 100. The lowest score was 2, the highest, 118. In every group he tested, there were always high scorers-- he calls these people Connectors. These are the people who know many people in many different ways. They don't necessarily have to be agressive about it, they might just be particularly interesting, funny, or otherwise socially gifted.
Most people tend not to know so many people. Humans are creatures of habit. They like to stick within their circles of friends; the people they really like. The low scorers are good examples of this...But they aren't given a name in the book.
Oh well.
Gladwell gives examples of a number of tests, one of which he conducted himself. This one involved administering a selection of names (about 200?). For each person one knows with that surname, one gets a point. The test is used to estimate roughly how many friends and acquaintances one has, and consequently, how social a person is.
I got about 4 points. One of them was for my third-grade teacher.
This either says that I'm really lazy and don't know a lot of people's last names, or that I'm really, really introverted and don't like people much, since the average score for college students was 41.
Gladwell mentions that he has administered the test to about 400 people. There were about 24 who scored below 20, around 8 scored above 90, and around 4 scored above 100. The lowest score was 2, the highest, 118. In every group he tested, there were always high scorers-- he calls these people Connectors. These are the people who know many people in many different ways. They don't necessarily have to be agressive about it, they might just be particularly interesting, funny, or otherwise socially gifted.
Most people tend not to know so many people. Humans are creatures of habit. They like to stick within their circles of friends; the people they really like. The low scorers are good examples of this...But they aren't given a name in the book.
Oh well.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The Plot Thickens
What makes people happy? I have a few things, but one of the most important to me is music. I live with a soundtrack, whether it's my iPod plugged into my ears, or just something running through my head. I was absolutely thrilled when I got an iPod for Christmas, because it meant I would no longer have to break a CD player every month. (Don't ask me how that ended up happening; it just did.) I go everywhere with it looped around my neck. When I get home after school and sit down at the computer, I listen to music. When I'm on the bus, on car trips, doing homework, drawing, at CCAD, even just cleaning my room, I listen. During classes, or if someone's talking to me, or anywhere like that, I obviously don't, but if I have an opportunity to, and it's not rude, I'll take it. Of course, quiet moments are great, especially if I'm trying to comprehend some particularly convoluted bit of math Josh has thrown at me, but if it's something like writing an essay or an outline, music helps me focus and gives me ideas.
Since most people seem to think my taste in music is bizarre, I'm also pretty much guaranteed privacy. And not many people ask to listen to my iPod anymore, either. Having something by Cirque du Soliel or some showtune fade out to be replaced by loud hardcore metal seems to have a lasting effect on people. I'm not sure why. Strange musical taste has its merits.
Since most people seem to think my taste in music is bizarre, I'm also pretty much guaranteed privacy. And not many people ask to listen to my iPod anymore, either. Having something by Cirque du Soliel or some showtune fade out to be replaced by loud hardcore metal seems to have a lasting effect on people. I'm not sure why. Strange musical taste has its merits.
This is a Witty and Creative Title.
http://www.president2008blog.com/
This blog is (as can be seen from the name) dedicated to information about the presidential candidates and campaigns of this year's election. The owner of the blog seems to remain fairly unbiased, and is not inflammatory in their posts. It provides information about all of the mainstream candidates without focusing on one in particular.
http://www.thatpoliticalblog.com/serendipity/index.php
This blog is slightly more judgmental. The author (in the "about" section) states that he strongly disagrees with Bush's administration. The blog's content can be accurately summed up with a quote from it...
"There will be serious discourse but there will also be a lot of snark on the news as well as reposts from other blogs. Am I doing this to provoke deep critical thinking or to convert anyone? No, not really. I just like writing and am vain enough to think others might be interested in my opinion. And if a reader has a different slant on a particular item I’d love to hear it via either the comments section or the Contact Page."
The writing style is more appealing than the first blog's, and it makes for much more interesting reading.
This blog is (as can be seen from the name) dedicated to information about the presidential candidates and campaigns of this year's election. The owner of the blog seems to remain fairly unbiased, and is not inflammatory in their posts. It provides information about all of the mainstream candidates without focusing on one in particular.
http://www.thatpoliticalblog.com/serendipity/index.php
This blog is slightly more judgmental. The author (in the "about" section) states that he strongly disagrees with Bush's administration. The blog's content can be accurately summed up with a quote from it...
"There will be serious discourse but there will also be a lot of snark on the news as well as reposts from other blogs. Am I doing this to provoke deep critical thinking or to convert anyone? No, not really. I just like writing and am vain enough to think others might be interested in my opinion. And if a reader has a different slant on a particular item I’d love to hear it via either the comments section or the Contact Page."
The writing style is more appealing than the first blog's, and it makes for much more interesting reading.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Targeting the Wrong Places
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/business/media/28target.html?_r=2&ex=1359176400&en=f66406c7732b555d&ei=50&oref=slogin
In response to this article, I have to say that I think Target is definitely out of touch. I understand that many, many people watch television (duh) and listen to to radio, and that these are main channels for Target to reach out to potential customers...But do they think that the internet is not an important medium for communicating? What percentage of Americans would one say do NOT access the internet on a regular basis? How many of the ones who do get on the internet regularly have a blog or the equivalent thereof?
I would say that Target needs to wake up and hear the incessant keyboard-tapping hordes. The blogosphere is definitely an important means of communicating. They should stop ignoring it simply because of what they define it as.
In response to this article, I have to say that I think Target is definitely out of touch. I understand that many, many people watch television (duh) and listen to to radio, and that these are main channels for Target to reach out to potential customers...But do they think that the internet is not an important medium for communicating? What percentage of Americans would one say do NOT access the internet on a regular basis? How many of the ones who do get on the internet regularly have a blog or the equivalent thereof?
I would say that Target needs to wake up and hear the incessant keyboard-tapping hordes. The blogosphere is definitely an important means of communicating. They should stop ignoring it simply because of what they define it as.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Anatomy of an Epidemic
In Gladwell's The Tipping Point, he explains the three rules of epidemics:
The Law of the Few: The sucess of any social epidemic, be it disease, fashion, or ideaology, is dependent on the involvment of people with particular habits or social skills. ("Connecters, Mavens, and Salesmen".)
The Stickiness Factor: The content of any message which makes it memorable and palatable.
The Power of Context: Anything with potential to become an epidemic must occur under favorable conditions and in the correct environment for it to actually become one.
Let's take high school as an example, since we've all experienced it. High school is a favorable environment for fashion trends to take hold (context). And God knows that there are certain groups of popular people. Ironically, or perhaps not, the really popular people, the ones everyone knows, are always social, good-looking, well-dressed, and/or talented. This seems to make them ideal "connecters, mavens, and salesmen". (the law of the few) A group of girls starts wearing a certain kind of hat. If it looks good, other people will aso start wearing them (stickiness). If enough people start, it will become an epidemic.
One must wonder what would happen if most of the well-known people decided it was cool not to breathe.
However, odds are that very few people in this world are dumb enough to decide that.
The Law of the Few: The sucess of any social epidemic, be it disease, fashion, or ideaology, is dependent on the involvment of people with particular habits or social skills. ("Connecters, Mavens, and Salesmen".)
The Stickiness Factor: The content of any message which makes it memorable and palatable.
The Power of Context: Anything with potential to become an epidemic must occur under favorable conditions and in the correct environment for it to actually become one.
Let's take high school as an example, since we've all experienced it. High school is a favorable environment for fashion trends to take hold (context). And God knows that there are certain groups of popular people. Ironically, or perhaps not, the really popular people, the ones everyone knows, are always social, good-looking, well-dressed, and/or talented. This seems to make them ideal "connecters, mavens, and salesmen". (the law of the few) A group of girls starts wearing a certain kind of hat. If it looks good, other people will aso start wearing them (stickiness). If enough people start, it will become an epidemic.
One must wonder what would happen if most of the well-known people decided it was cool not to breathe.
However, odds are that very few people in this world are dumb enough to decide that.
Biography of an Idea
Malcolm Gladwell deems his book, The Tipping Point, the biography of an idea. This seems a particularly apt description for it. Gladwell names the "Tipping Point" as the point at which "The momentum for change becomes unstoppable". In the introduction to the book, he tells the story of Hush Puppies shoes, which were on their way out before mid-1994, then were suddenly popular. This is attributed to a small number of people who began wearing the shoes just because they were unpopular. Eventually, these people influenced other people, who also began wearing them to show how noncomformist and original they were. Finally, people began wearing them because they were actually popular.
Similar events can easily be discerned in more recent trends. For example (And, unimaginatively, I'm using another kind of shoe as my example), Chuck Taylors. People started wearing them to be original and nonconformist (seeing a trend yet?), and they got popular because other original, nonconformist teenagers saw people wearing them and decided to as well, because it would be original, nonconformist, and badass. Many revived trends can be traced to original, nonconformist groups of people, who popularized things and made them rather-conformist-but-still-somewhat-original.
But I, personally, must maintain that Chucks are badass.
Similar events can easily be discerned in more recent trends. For example (And, unimaginatively, I'm using another kind of shoe as my example), Chuck Taylors. People started wearing them to be original and nonconformist (seeing a trend yet?), and they got popular because other original, nonconformist teenagers saw people wearing them and decided to as well, because it would be original, nonconformist, and badass. Many revived trends can be traced to original, nonconformist groups of people, who popularized things and made them rather-conformist-but-still-somewhat-original.
But I, personally, must maintain that Chucks are badass.
Hygeine. It's a good thing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22827499/
What is this? Health professionals not washing their hands? Personally, I find that just a little troubling...It shouldn't be something that a doctor or nurse needs to be reminded to do. If they've been through med school, it should almost be reflex.
Looking at my own habits, I'm nearly a compusively clean person. I'm the one who can't go a day without brushing her teeth less than twice, if not three times. I once asked my father to turn the car around when we were already an hour and a half away from home because I forgot my deoderant. I'm not a habitually dirty or slobbish person. I do know people who are. One girl only showers once a month. (And yes, she actually tells people this.) She doesn't wear deoderant. The reason for her infrequent bathing is, she claims, that her hair needs "special treatment". It needs to soak in grease? At least wash the rest of your body. In theatre last year, girls in the dressing room would have to spray her bag and clothes with air freshener or body spray when she wasn't there. And she didn't notice. Seriously, if you stink, it's time to take a shower.
I can understand lack of hygiene in a few people at school. It's certainly nice that the general practice for most sane people is washing themselves regularly. Seriously, we do live in America. While many aspects of that suck, we do have a lot of luxuries. Like nice, hot, running water. It's not a huge deal to go and hop in the shower for twenty minutes. In hospitals and other medical environments, cleanliness should be the norm. If a doctor or nurse, or even a visitor going to another patient didn't wash after touching somebody else, something really nasty could be started. Staph infections, pneumonia, flu. If I knew that a doctor hadn't washed their hands, I probably would ask them to do so. Can you imagine what would happen if anyone exposed to that kind of thing walked into a clean room and infected an immunocompromised patient?
I know that nothing will make everyone start washing, but I still hate walking into the bathroom and seeing somebody walk out without washing their hands. I wonder if it's pure laziness or just neglect, or if they really are in such a huge hurry. My invisible-woman status and shyness prevent me from asking people to wash, but I always hope that my look of utter horror will instigate guilt and a bout of hand-washing.
Or maybe a spray in the face from the faucet.
Either's good.
What is this? Health professionals not washing their hands? Personally, I find that just a little troubling...It shouldn't be something that a doctor or nurse needs to be reminded to do. If they've been through med school, it should almost be reflex.
Looking at my own habits, I'm nearly a compusively clean person. I'm the one who can't go a day without brushing her teeth less than twice, if not three times. I once asked my father to turn the car around when we were already an hour and a half away from home because I forgot my deoderant. I'm not a habitually dirty or slobbish person. I do know people who are. One girl only showers once a month. (And yes, she actually tells people this.) She doesn't wear deoderant. The reason for her infrequent bathing is, she claims, that her hair needs "special treatment". It needs to soak in grease? At least wash the rest of your body. In theatre last year, girls in the dressing room would have to spray her bag and clothes with air freshener or body spray when she wasn't there. And she didn't notice. Seriously, if you stink, it's time to take a shower.
I can understand lack of hygiene in a few people at school. It's certainly nice that the general practice for most sane people is washing themselves regularly. Seriously, we do live in America. While many aspects of that suck, we do have a lot of luxuries. Like nice, hot, running water. It's not a huge deal to go and hop in the shower for twenty minutes. In hospitals and other medical environments, cleanliness should be the norm. If a doctor or nurse, or even a visitor going to another patient didn't wash after touching somebody else, something really nasty could be started. Staph infections, pneumonia, flu. If I knew that a doctor hadn't washed their hands, I probably would ask them to do so. Can you imagine what would happen if anyone exposed to that kind of thing walked into a clean room and infected an immunocompromised patient?
I know that nothing will make everyone start washing, but I still hate walking into the bathroom and seeing somebody walk out without washing their hands. I wonder if it's pure laziness or just neglect, or if they really are in such a huge hurry. My invisible-woman status and shyness prevent me from asking people to wash, but I always hope that my look of utter horror will instigate guilt and a bout of hand-washing.
Or maybe a spray in the face from the faucet.
Either's good.
Friday, February 1, 2008
The Culture of Exploitation
To be honest, the first time I heard someone mention The death of Heath Ledger, my reaction was "Why do we care?"
And that's the one I'm still asking, really. I've only seen one of his movies, but I ceratinly respect him as an actor and as a decent man. Of course I'm sorry about his death, and I commiserate with his family. It must be extremely hard for them. But does anyone think that his mourning family really wants his death plastered all over CNN and other news sites? Do they want a bunch of high-schoolers gossiping about it? Do they want all of that attention? It must be difficult-- Every time you log onto the internet or turn on the news, you have to steel yourself for another reminder of loss.
Why do people care about celebrities? Britney Spears, for instance...Though that may have a logical explanation. Have you ever seen how people slow down to watch a car wreck? The truth seems to be that human beings have an innate need to pedestalize other people. Americans, especially, seem to have a bizarre interest in hearing about the escapades and suffering of others whom they see as important. Or even just the suffering of anybody. It's like a testimony to how vacuous and shallow American society has become; the need to praise and pay attention to the beautiful, sucessful people and chastise the ones who aren't. A culture of self-exultation and arrogance, along with the exploitation of others.
Maybe it's a need to elevate ourselves that makes us do it. A need to think that other people who we think of as even MORE important than US (God forbid) have lives that suck more than ours. It really is almost apotheosis. In some lights, I guess it could be considered just that. The deification of celebrities, even posthumously.
I'm probably being too cynical, but so be it.
And that's the one I'm still asking, really. I've only seen one of his movies, but I ceratinly respect him as an actor and as a decent man. Of course I'm sorry about his death, and I commiserate with his family. It must be extremely hard for them. But does anyone think that his mourning family really wants his death plastered all over CNN and other news sites? Do they want a bunch of high-schoolers gossiping about it? Do they want all of that attention? It must be difficult-- Every time you log onto the internet or turn on the news, you have to steel yourself for another reminder of loss.
Why do people care about celebrities? Britney Spears, for instance...Though that may have a logical explanation. Have you ever seen how people slow down to watch a car wreck? The truth seems to be that human beings have an innate need to pedestalize other people. Americans, especially, seem to have a bizarre interest in hearing about the escapades and suffering of others whom they see as important. Or even just the suffering of anybody. It's like a testimony to how vacuous and shallow American society has become; the need to praise and pay attention to the beautiful, sucessful people and chastise the ones who aren't. A culture of self-exultation and arrogance, along with the exploitation of others.
Maybe it's a need to elevate ourselves that makes us do it. A need to think that other people who we think of as even MORE important than US (God forbid) have lives that suck more than ours. It really is almost apotheosis. In some lights, I guess it could be considered just that. The deification of celebrities, even posthumously.
I'm probably being too cynical, but so be it.
Reviews, Part II
I think that part of the appeal of creating and maintaining a blog is the ability to control peoples' impression of you. The appearance of a blog is the first clue anyone might have to its owner and their personality and tastes, and its content. Pull up Google and search for blog skins, and you'll get thousands of results. (http://blogger-templates.blogspot.com/) The generic ones offered when you first set up the blog can easily be modified, as well. For instance, when I discovered that new elements could be added to my blog, I pulled up Photoshop and, for kicks and giggles, took ten minutes to slap together a header.
The principle is much the same on MySpace and Facebook, along with other social sites of their irritating ilk. Some people (who, for some reason which has yet to be figured out by the most talented scientists on six continents, want to be emo), can cloak their pages under a veneer of black and red, and maybe some stitches and black roses to show how jaded and scarred by life they are, slap a clip of Linkin Park on there, and pretend their lives suck. Conversely, and perhaps in a more dangerous sense, anyone, of any age, could make their MySpace look quite tame and appealing and really be some creepy 50-year-old guy in Virginia typing to fourteen-year-olds one-handed. (I have heard tell that MySpace has initiated some new policy to prevent such things from occuring often, but I'm not up on that, as I don't frequent the site)
However, usually, blog skins are used to express personal preferences and not for neferious wrongdoings. The blog in the link at the beginning of this post is one of the many which offer skins for free. The draw of using these is to make one's blog unique, but some people like to go the extra mile and make their own header, or even go the extra three or four miles and create a whole new skin for themselves. (This should only be attempted by people with initiative. Really.)
The way a blog looks shows how the content might be expressed, and can even express the views of its owner. (Most obvious in the cases of over-obsessed fangirls whose backgrounds have pictures of their favorite celebrity/character/pairing repeated a nystagmus-inducing number of times.) The best way to go about creating a blog, in my opinion, is to leave it easy-to-read (no confusing backgrounds), and to keep it fairly simple. This is the advantage of using pre-created skins. They look fairly professional most of the time and aren't overly annoying. You wouldn't want to have people hitting the back button as soon as they see your page just because it's distracting or obnoxious.
The principle is much the same on MySpace and Facebook, along with other social sites of their irritating ilk. Some people (who, for some reason which has yet to be figured out by the most talented scientists on six continents, want to be emo), can cloak their pages under a veneer of black and red, and maybe some stitches and black roses to show how jaded and scarred by life they are, slap a clip of Linkin Park on there, and pretend their lives suck. Conversely, and perhaps in a more dangerous sense, anyone, of any age, could make their MySpace look quite tame and appealing and really be some creepy 50-year-old guy in Virginia typing to fourteen-year-olds one-handed. (I have heard tell that MySpace has initiated some new policy to prevent such things from occuring often, but I'm not up on that, as I don't frequent the site)
However, usually, blog skins are used to express personal preferences and not for neferious wrongdoings. The blog in the link at the beginning of this post is one of the many which offer skins for free. The draw of using these is to make one's blog unique, but some people like to go the extra mile and make their own header, or even go the extra three or four miles and create a whole new skin for themselves. (This should only be attempted by people with initiative. Really.)
The way a blog looks shows how the content might be expressed, and can even express the views of its owner. (Most obvious in the cases of over-obsessed fangirls whose backgrounds have pictures of their favorite celebrity/character/pairing repeated a nystagmus-inducing number of times.) The best way to go about creating a blog, in my opinion, is to leave it easy-to-read (no confusing backgrounds), and to keep it fairly simple. This is the advantage of using pre-created skins. They look fairly professional most of the time and aren't overly annoying. You wouldn't want to have people hitting the back button as soon as they see your page just because it's distracting or obnoxious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
