Presenting myself as “That other one”

Being identical twins, my sister, Pam, and I have to put up with people mixing us up, calling us by the wrong name, and saying things like “You’re the same person.” It can be frustrating. So, once a year for the past three years we have decided to get revenge/play tricks/see who really knows who we are. We do this by switching places in the marching band. She plays trumpet in the band. I do not play an instrument and have never been in the marching band. This Friday, we switched places in for the pep rally. We met up after her practice and switched coats and hats. I went to the pep rally and she went to dinner. (By the way, I definitely saw Caitlin there but I don’t think she thought it was me.)

Beforehand, Pam has had to train me how to “be” her. There are practical issues such as marching, how to hold a trumpet and pretend to play, and whistle and hand signals. However, there are also other ways of presenting myself as her linguistically. She informed me of different inside jokes she has with certain people. She also has different ways of greeting different people. For example, many band members have nicknames that may not be used outside of the band. In order to present myself as Pam, I have to call these people by their nicknames and not be the names that they may introduce themselves as. I also had to pretend to know what the trumpets were talking about when they discussed other band members, music and formations (which I know nothing about.) I would give back-channel cues as if I knew exactly what was going on. There was also the very simply procedure of answering to the name “Pam.” I usually do not do this (unless I know someone is confused). I also had a few of Pam’s friends who were in on the prank call me Pam. Here is what I observed:

We counted at least 12 people who we were 100% sure that they were fooled, either because they called me Pam or they did not think there was anything strange that I, and not Pam, was there. There were a lot of people who walked past me and did not take much notice of me/Pam. I’m not sure if Pam does not know them or if they didn’t notice that I wasn’t Pam.

There were 2 cases of particular interest:

One girl (whose name I can’t remember) came up to me and started talking to me. She said that I looked particularly like Em that night, more than usual. I thought that she knew the truth but she kept talking about how I/Pam sometimes look more like Em than usual. I went along with the conversation but didn’t explicitly say that I wasn’t Pam. About five minutes later, Chris (on of Pam’s friends who was in on the prank) slipped and called me Em. She was really shocked that I actually was Em and not Pam who just happened to look more like Em that night. I thought that she was testing waters with her language by saying that I looked like Em. I think that she expected a confession if I turned out to be Em and not Pam.

I had a fifteen minute conversation with one boy, Bobby, who told me all about his bad day. I commiserated with him, pretended to know all the people that he was talking about, and was generally nice to him (as I imagine Pam would be). The people who had figured it out were laughing the whole time, but Bobby didn’t catch on. Finally I told him that I wasn’t Pam. He got really made – profanity included. He said that it wasn’t fair that he didn’t realize it was me because I was in a the band, a situation where he wasn’t suspecting I would be. He was also mad that I went along with the conversation, that I presented myself as Pam. He said that he couldn’t be expected to tell us apart if I was presenting myself as Pam.

I think this is the key to the whole situation. If you present yourself as one person and talk and act like that person in a situation where that person usually is, than no one should suspect you are any thing other than what you present yourself as.

Self presentation and being agreeable

The article that I found for Monday was about presenting oneself and trying to make people like you when discussing different political views. It was called “Taking the Edge off disagreement: linguistic abstractness and self-presentation to a heterogeneous audience” by Monica Rubini of the University of Bologna and Harold Sigall of the University of Maryland. The article became very technical, but I will do my best to summarize it:

The authors did an experiment where they told participants that they wanted them to talk to two strangers and try to get the strangers to like them. They two people were either both of the same political view, both of differing political views, or a mix of one person with the same political view and one person of differing views from the participant. The language was measured by how abstract it was. There were four categories starting from the most concrete (also listed are the examples that they gave in the article):
1. Descriptive action verbs – uses objective language – “John tripped Tom”
2. Interpretive action verbs – verbs that evaluate the action – “John injured Tom”
3. State Verbs – verbs that do not have temporal or situational reference – “John envies Tom”
4. Adjectives – “transcend specific situations, objects, behaviors, or reference persons” (344), - “John is nasty”

The participants differed in how they presented themselves linguistically. People tended to use more abstract language with the people with whom they shared political views because it is more “trans-situational and stable over time.” (344). Although I’m not completely sure, I think that this means that the people were comfortable making much broader statements that didn’t have the same amount of evidence as concrete statements which were used with people with whom the participants did not share political views. It seems to me that abstract language can be the most easily misinterpreted. When someone does not agree with your political opinions, they may easily take an abstract adjectives and put a different meaning than what was intended. This could lead to a misunderstanding and make the participant disagreeable to the other two interviewers. When someone agrees with you, then they will also agree with your abstract language. It is safer to make broad statements when everyone already agrees with you.

Response to Koven

I really liked how Koven looked at the way that people present themselves differently through different ways of speaking. I think that we all have different codes even if we are not all bilingual. She somewhat addresses this in her conclusion:

“Different ways of speaking, within and across languages, create socially and psychologically real effects for people, producing for the same speaker multiple expressions and experiences of socially recognizable selves” (437).

I can relate to this. I find myself speaking more politely and in general acting more politely around strangers, especially when I am asking them for something. I notice that when I talk to a cashier, university official or when I ask for directions I am use very polite language. I go over-the-top with directives, stand up straight, and hedge a lot. I would describe myself as polite, humble, and somewhat timid. I do not act like this at all around my friends where I am much more relaxed. I present myself differently for different sets of people through the language that I use.

I notice similar changes in behavior and language in my little sister when we go to our grandma’s. It doesn’t matter if she was fighting with me, swearing, or using informal language. The second we walk into my grandma’s house, she presents herself as the angel child, speaking politely and using proper grammar. Her speech and her entire attitude change.

My best friend from home also is guilty of code-switching behavior, especially when answering the phone. She speaks in an extremely high-pitched, saccharine voice when she says “Hello, this is Laura.” If I am on the other end, then she reverts to her normal voice and informality. If we are in the same room and an adult is on the other end of the phone, she continues on with the “fake” voice. She is extremely polite and obliging. However, once she hangs up the phone, she is back to her normal self.

I don’t think there is anything hypocritical in these changes in language and behavior. I think that we are all “multiphrenic” as we read earlier. There are appropriate times to present oneself in different ways.

Response to The Decline and Fall of the Private Self

I found Flora’s article to be closely connected with Gergen’s idea of the multiphrenia – people portray themselves in different forms through the means of blogging. Flora writes that “Whether he [the blogger] realizes it or not, the online scribe cultivates an identity that anticipates and responds to its audience.” I take this to mean that a person cultivates a persona that he or she portrays online. This persona may be different from how one presents oneself in face-to-face situations. “You become a character [online], a speaking part, in the larger theater of society.” By playing a character, the person would seem to not be being himself and would not be connected to reality, which is not like a movie. There are a lot of instances where people make up completely fake persona’s, like lonelygirl15, and blog or present themselves online. When people find out that this is not their true selves, they become upset. It is surprising to me that anyone can think that what a person chooses to tell about himself online is absolutely true. It seems like this is another instance of not being connected to reality.

On a completely separate note, I found that this article put into words why I find blogging so uncomfortable and somewhat “creepy.” The people in the article talk about themselves as being characters in a movie. It seems as if they crave being a celebrity and will put all privacy aside in an attempt to be famous. I do not want to be a celebrity. I value my privacy and feel uncomfortable sharing personal information about myself with strangers. Even homework (such as this blog) feels to me as if I am allowing people to read my personal work. I feel obligated to put on the perfect persona of being an intelligent, articulate student. When I blog, I feel like I am being watched and judged by others. I think that people who blog regularly feel like they also are being watched and judged but that they just enjoy that kind of attention.

Response to Gergen - Celebrities

One of the most interesting things, for me, about Gergen’s article was his point that people can form “relationships” with celebrities and people in the media. He makes the point that television, magazines and radio allow us to feel connected to people that we have never met. I find it very fascinating, not to mention foreign, that many people follow the lives of celebrities and take a great interest in their affairs. They are distraught when their favorite star is going through a hard time; they rejoice when the star is going to appear in a new movie; and they pour over pictures of the celebrity and his/her family, children, and love interests. Gergen makes the point that we feel a connection to these people because we see them on TV or in the movies all the time. I would disagree with him. I don’t think that the way the celebrity presents himself is who that person truly is. Like Gergen says, we all have mutliphrenia – many different personalities depending on the circumstance. I find it odd that people feel that they know celebrities through their work. Why do people take such a great interest in people that they will never meet and who do not care at all about them? To me, this seems like a very strange relationship. Perhaps the class can enlighten me.

I like his point that “because celebrity figures are known by so many people, they serve as forms of social glue, allowing people from different points of society to converse with each other, to share feelings, and essentially to carry on informational relations.” I’m not sure if I entirely agree with this. I don’t think all interactions with strangers can be reduced to the fact that we all know the same celebrities. However, I do think that if we take “celebrity” in a broader sense of the word, the statement makes a little more sense: celebrity can mean someone who is famous in a group of people. So, at ND, Fr. Jenkins, certain popular (or notorious) professors, very outgoing, popular students, and the student body president might be considered celebrities. We all know them and can talk about them even if these people are not considered celebrities by anyone outside our group. I think the celebrities can help define the group’s identity because they represent (or are the antithesis of) what the group believes and stands for.) However, I don’t think that it is these celebrities in particular that hold the group together. The common interests of the group are what create the group and allow celebrities to emerge.

Communication technology and true friendship

There has been much concern from both specialists and the general population that email, instant messenger, social networking sites, cell phones, and other computer mediated communication are destroying genuine friendships. Although there is some data in support of this view, overwhelmingly, researchers argue that technology is actually helping to bring people together into strong, meaningful relationships. With the use of computer mediated communication, people are choosing to have more weak ties but are not necessarily abandoning their strong ties with others. There is also evidence that communication technology supports long-distance relationships as well as friendships that might have fallen apart without CMC. Despite concern that electronic communication is destroying relationships, new media has actually strengthened and maintained genuine ties between people.
There is substantial evidence that, while people who use CMC have many more weak ties, their strong ties and meaningful relationships have not suffered as a consequence. Matsuda writes about the concern in Japan that “over twenty years since 1973, there has been a decease in people of all generations who want “comprehensive” relationships with relatives, neighbors, and co-workers, and an increase in people who want “partial” or “formal” relationships” (Matsuda 137). It would seem then, that people in Japan are abandoning strong ties in favor of weak ones due to the rise of availability in CMC. However, Matsuda qualifies this assumption by arguing that this trend “was related not only to keitai adoption but also to a broader context of concurrent generational change and urbanization trends” (Matsuda 138). Therefore, new media is not responsible for any decrease in strong friendships in Japan. Baron’s research also supports Matsuda’s positions: “Contemporary data generally suggest that networked computers aren’t reducing our number of friendships or the amount of time we spend with one another” (Baron 122). People may have hundreds of Facebook “friends” but never spend much time or have an intimate relationship with them. However, having hundreds of weak connections does not pull a person away from his strong ties. People are using CMC to “foster relationships with those whom they choose to contact” (Matsuda 123). While Facebook is “a way to of maintaining a [weak] friendship without having to make any effort whatsoever,” people realize that effort is needed to maintain strong relationships and act accordingly (Baron 85).
New media helps to foster these already established strong relationships and allows people to remain closer in touch when they otherwise could not have done so. Communication technologies especially help to maintain relationships in which the two friends no longer live close by. In Japan, pagers, and later keitai, make “it possible to be friends with people in different places and under different circumstances…Pagers and keitai do not increase the number of friends that young people meet with and associate with outside of school They primarily provide opportunities to maintain relationships with friends who used to go to the same school” (Matsuda 127). From this evidence, it is clear that technology in Japan is used to nurture previously established strong relationships. Without technology, young people may lose contact with friends from school who move away. Here, as in other places, new media is a help rather than a hindrance to friendship. Along with keeping in touch with friends who move away, Matsuda gives the example of the kaeru call in which a person will call home on a cell phone to let the family know when he or she will be home. These phone calls, which show intimacy and help to establish connections within a family, have only come about since the emergence and ubiquity of cell phones in Japan. It is widely thought that without the kaeru and “these routine communications…the family could disintegrate” (Matsuda 131). Again, new media is allowing families to stay in contact with one another throughout the day and to maintain their already strong relationships. Baron agrees with Matsuda’s analysis that CMC allows people with existing relationships to stay together but also goes on to comment that sometimes people use the technology as a way to become too closely tied and dependent on another person. Technologies “provide opportunities to tether ourselves to one another” (Baron 224). She gives the example of the college students who call home 10 times a week (Baron 224). Although Baron sees this type of relationship as too dependent, she cannot argue that the parents and children do not have a close, strong relationship. In both Japan and the United States, evidence shows that CMC is maintaining previously established strong relationships.
Finally, CMC plays a major role in maintaining important relationships between people whose ties might have disintegrated if not for the ease and convenience of new media. “Social interaction is increasingly becoming virtual” (Baron 219). In general, there is a lot less face-to-face interaction and a lot more interaction through technology (Baron 219). However, continuing a previously established relationship strictly through CMC seems to be desirable in comparison with the alternative: abandoning the strong friendship. In Japan, where the society is becoming more individualistic, people no longer feel obligated to meet with family members and neighbors face-to-face. Instead, “making contact with family has become an individual’s responsibility and choice…people have to stay in close touch with one another on a regular basis through keitai” (Matsuda 132). In these types of situations, the children probably would not have any contact with their parents if it were not for a the convenience of a mobile phone. “There are indicators that keitai has increased contact with family members who were frequently out of the home and had few occasions to call” (Matsuda 130). These relationships would disintegrate if it were not for a cell phone or email. Therefore, it is desirable that people should use technology if it makes it easier to maintain essential family relationships since they do not want or do not have time for face-to-face interaction.
From the personal experiences of the class, it seems clear that many people use CMC to keep in contact with those from home with whom they have a strong relationship. Students call or text parents and siblings at home. High school friends exchange emails and chat on IM. While many of us have several hundred Facebook friends, we use the new media primarily to maintain strong, already established relationships. New media is also used to keep in contact with people who live nearby: calls, texts, and IMs seem to be primarily used to set up appointments to meet face-to-face. Clearly from both personal experience and the research of Baron and Matsuda, communication technologies help rather than hurt previously formed strong relationships.


Bibliography:
Baron, Naomi S. 2008. Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Matsuda, Misa. 2005. “Mobile Communication and Selective Sociality.” In Personal, Portable and Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life, edited by Mizuko Ito, Daisuke Okabe, and Misa Matsuda. Cambridge, MA, and London: The MIT Press.

Thoughts on Katz

One interesting observation that I made when reading Katz’ article was that people have always feared that new technology will destroy society and break down social conventions and morals. Everything from the telegraph, telephone, answering machine and cell phones has been viewed with distrust during their initial appearance. He makes the point that, after being around for quite some time, people see their usefulness and begin to accept the new technology. There are changes in culture and ideas of what is morally okay to do with the new technology.

Interestingly, he talked little about the ethics of some of the new technology. What we view as unethical today may be seen as perfectly normal once people see the usefulness of a new technology. That made me question whether we put convenience above morality. Are we only moral with our technology as long as it is convenient to us? There is some technology, such as cloning and embryonic stem-cell research that has been condemned for being immoral but there are still scientists who pursue advances in these fields. It seems that the possible technological advances that Katz outlines may be the same: mind mail and reading the thoughts of dead people seem to me to be an immoral dehumanization of a person, turning us into machines or something that can be read at our convenience. It is something to think about whether these advances will ever come to be and if they will be considered perfectly acceptable if people find them convenient.

Blog of Log

I logged my interaction with technology for 2 days because I felt that the first time I did it, I picked a bad day. I had a five hour practice where I would probably be using technology. I also was purposefully checking email and listening to my mp3 player (which I rarely do) in order to have something to write down. However, the second day I logged the time I spent with technology, I felt like I was on the computer all day and that this was accurate. I was working on making my survey for my ethnographic research and I spent about 2 hours on the internet working on it. Here is a summary of my log:

Saturday November 8th
Time How long Medium Purpose
9:30 5 minutes email email - check school business
9:35 2 minutes facebook facebook - check and clear status personal
9:40 1 minute cell phone call Pam for breakfast meeting
10:38 1 minute email email - send survey to myself homework
10:40- 11:55 1 hour 15 minutes Google survey make/fix survey on Google homework
10:40-11:55 1 hour 15 minutes iTunes listen to music personal
11:56 5 minutes email email survey to Pam, Sam, Anita and Prof homework
11:58 1 minute directory check for Sam's email address on directory referential
12:35 2 minutes cell phone talk to Pam on the phone about the survey referential
12:37- 1:28 50 minutes Google survey work on survey homework
12:37- 1:28 50 minutes iTunes listen to music personal
1:29 1 minute printer print survey homework
4:27 3 minutes email check emails from professors referential
4:30-4:59 29 minutes email send ballroom business email; respond to friends school business/phatic
4:40 2 minutes internet Check DPAC schedule referential
4:48 2 minutes facebook set up meeting with Chris meeting
5:55 5 minutes cell phone 3 calls to set up dinner time meeting
6:05 2 minutes blog post homework
6:06 2 minutes email check - nothing new school business
9:30-10:45 1 hour 15 minutes iTunes listen to music personal
9:30-10:45 1 hour 15 minutes TV watch the ND game - sound down personal
10:39 2 minutes facebook get friends addresses referential
11:00 1/2 hour internet/TV watch the Office online personal
11:40 15 minutes Google survey fix survey homework


Wednesday November 5th
9:15 10 minutes mp3 listen to music walking to class personal
10:45 10 minutes mp3 listen to music walking from class personal
11:15 10 minutes email check general emails and respond to professors school business
10:40 2 minutes cell phone voicemail referential
11:25 2 minutes facebook respond to event invitation personal/meeting
2:50 2 minutes cell phone call sister - set up meeting meeting
2:53 1 minute cell phone voicemail personal/referential
5:00 15 minutes email general check school business
5:17 2 minutes facebook check to see if anyone contacted me personal
11:25 4 minutes cell phone voicemail personal/referential
11:29 2 minutes cell phone set up appointment meeting
11:44 2 minutes cell phone set up appointment meeting
11:35 55 minutes Computer/email writing email to friends but was doing other things in my room - used email for about 15 minutes phatic


I think the most interesting thing about the log is the comparison between the two days. On wed, I used CMC for 1 hour 17 minutes. On Sunday, I used CMC for 8 and half hours. (There was some multitasking.) Generally, I think I use CMC more like I did on Wednesday. However, the range is really interesting. It is very possible for me to spend half my day on the computer if homework calls for it. I found this data very surprising.

I didn’t spend that many large chunks of time on CMC on Wed, but 10 minutes here, and 2 minutes there really add up. When every I check email, I always feel that I spend more time than I want to online. I didn’t realize that I spend over an hour using technology. Saturday was something of an anomaly. By the end of day, I felt completely burned out and wanted to throw my computer out the window. My dependence on my computer, especially for homework and sending referential emails really shocked me.

For the most part, I was alone when using CMC – cell phone use excluded. The only exception was the large chunk of time from 9:30 onward on Saturday. I watched the game, listened to music, and watched online TV with my sister. The rest of the day, I was communicating with other people but I was alone in my room. It was a very isolating day for me. I usually don’t spend this much time on my computer alone. I don’t really feel that I am actually connecting to people when I send emails. There’s something artificial and business-like in them. I don’t feel like I’m sending them to anyone at all.

The last point that I thought was interesting was that I did no multitasking on Wed but a lot of multitasking on Saturday. I listened to a lot of music when I was working online. The hours multitasking, I double counted for my total of 8 and ½ hours of technology. The amount of time spent without double counting the multitasking was about 6 hours.

True self and Face Threatening Acts

I think it’s interesting that people are more open, more their “true selves” on the internet. I think this makes sense though, especially considering “face-threatening acts” that we learned about last year. I don’t remember who wrote about face-threatening acts, but here’s a quick summary to the best of my ability for those of you who weren’t in the Fundamentals course:

A face-threatening act is any interaction with another person where you are asking something of them. This can be tangible things or intangible things. Anything from asking someone for directions to saying hello is a face threatening act because you are, in a way, invading someone else’s space and privacy and seeking some sort of response which the other person may not want to give you.

In a way, looking for friendship is also a face-threatening act. You are asking someone to reciprocate your attentions and feelings toward them. By being on the internet, you greatly reduce the amount of “threatening” that you do – chat rooms, like the ones in the experiment, are much more impersonal than face-to-face conversations. The person does not need to look at the stranger on the other end of the chat room. Also, it is much easier to ignore a person on IM without hurting another person’s feeling. Signing off can be explained with a quick excuse or two. A person may never “see” the stranger again, thereby making each person bolder: if you will never see someone again you may be more likely to answer questions or reveal things about yourself that you normally wouldn’t. Questions and information that may be threatening in a face-to-face situation become less threatening online.

The article “Can You See the Real Me?” mentions that anonymity is an essential part to the way people portray themselves online. If no one has an identity, in a manner of speaking, then no one really has a face to threaten. Therefore, it is much easier to put one’s true self out there and ask for friendship. The act is much less threatening to all involved and the risks of rejection aren’t as high.

Minor Ethnographic Research

This weekend I went out of town and was in the car for quite some time (7 hours up and back) with a group of people. Being an enthusiastic linguistic anthropologist, I naturally mentioned the topic of CMC during the ride (since my victims couldn’t escape :D ) I decided to do some informal ethnographic research. I asked everyone about their views of cell phone usage. Here is the results:

Nearly everyone in the car admitted to using their phones to call someone who was in the same house that they were in. When questioned why, they either said that it was easier or that they thought that shouting all around the house was rude. I asked them why they did not just walk into the next room or floor. The general consensus was that they were busy multitasking and that they didn’t have to disrupt their work to call someone else.

I told them about the debate over whether texting, IM, and blogging is destroying language. I asked them if they thought technology was making people stupider. Everyone said yes. This surprised me. However, no one indicated that they thought that they were becoming less intelligent. They said that in their experience, people do not want to read books that are written at a high reading level. (One of the girls was reading a romance novel which, as we discussed earlier, is usually written at a 6th grade reading level. However, she still complained that it was a shame that people did not have higher reading skills.)

I thought it was interesting that no one thought technology was making them stupider, just other people. Perhaps we judge the level of other people’s language against our own. This may be the reason why educators are so concerned: they presumably have a very high reading level, considering their education, and judge any difference from their speech and writing to be wrong or at least alarming. Maybe this is why texters and IMers who use a lot of abbreviations do not see anything wrong with their language.

One final question I asked was whether people preferred electronic or printed books. Baron said that one of the questions in the future was whether or not paper will play as an important role in an electronic world. The only boy who responded said that he preferred electronic texts because he could easily add his own notes to them. Personally, I like bound books because I can hold them and feel them. To me, they seem more real.

I seems as though this cross-section of the population is generally in agreement about calling people in the same house and the deterioration of language. Then again, this data wasn’t exactly collected in the most precise, scientific manner. However, I am always very interested in people’s opinions on what we talk about in class, especially if they haven’t academically studied the subjects in question.

Lists of Cell Phone Etiquette

For class tomorrow I read a few articles on Cell phone etiquette. There were a lot of “10 Commandments” of cell phone etiquette, and not all of them were the same. Although most authors agreed that respecting the people around you is the most important thing to consider when using a cell phone, some had varying view about what was considerate. Here is a summary (with out all of the “thou’s” and “thy’s”):

OfficeSolutions (magazine)
1. Be courteous and don’t force others to overhear your conversations
2. don’t let your phone ring in the theatre
3. or in a restaurant
4. or during an important meeting
5. Put the phone of silent and vibrate when you think a ring would be disruptive
6. screen incoming calls with caller ID
7. let voicemail take unimportant calls
8. Text when available
9. do not shout into your phone
10. Don’t drive and talk on the phone

I personally think that 7 and 8 could be perceived as somewhat rude. Texting is not appropriate in all situations and even if a call is not urgent does not mean that you should not answer. How do you know if a call is urgent unless you pick up the phone. I also think this list leaves out a few rules that others lists deal more effectively with.

Harriette Cole, author or How to Be: Contemporary Etiquette for African Americans and creative director of EBONY magazine
1. Avoid private chats in public situations
2. Don’t talk on your phone while driving
3. Don’t text while driving
4. Keep ring tone volume low
5. Don’t be the center of attention
6. Avoid other’s personal space (don’t talk on the phone too closely to another person)
7. Don’t use the cell phone on a date
8. Text for brief information
9. Do not text when you are with someone in person
10. Do not wear a headset when not in use

I think these rules are a lot more comprehensive than the first list. 8, like the 8 of the last list is questionable in my opinion. I guess you must evaluate how the other person wants to communicate. I personally find texting impersonal. I also have to pay per text message, so I appreciate when people call.

LIFESTYLES magazine did not have a 10 commandments list but here is some of their comments:
1. respect people’s public space
2. It’s okay to talk in public and on public transportation as long as you use a low voice – be discreet
3. Follow establishment rules (in restaurants etc) if they limits to cell phone use
4. Let the recipient know that you are on a cell phone in case you fade in and out
5. put your phone on vibrate in public so that you don’t bother people with your ring tone
6. Two people interviewed had different ideas of whether or not it was appropriate to answer the phone during a conversation

I have big problems with this list. I do not think that it is appropriate to have private conversations in a public place as long as you have a low voice. Everyone can still here every detail of your conversation. No one really wants to hear someone else’s phone conversation. I also think that using a phone in a restaurant or other public establishment is rude for the same reason – everyone can hear you.

4 is a little bit out of date. Most people know that when someone breaks up, they are on a cell phone. Cell phones are so ubiquitous that people are not alarmed if someone’s call is fuzzy.

5. Vibrations can still be heard. Especially when it is quiet – such as in church or in class (esp. during a test). Having the phone on vibrate can be rude in certain situations

I think answering the phone during a face-to-face conversation is the epitome of rudeness. I know a lot of people don’t feel this way, but when someone answers their phone and ignores me, I get ticked.

Here’s the final list from author Charlotte Ford.
1. Don’t talk in places where people are forced to overhear your conversations
2. Don’t have annoying ringtones
3. Turn off cell phones in public performances
4. Do not wear more than two wireless devices on your belt
5. Do not drive and talk on the phone
6. Do not wear an earpiece while with other people
7. Use a normal volume on the phone
8. do not grow too attached you your cell phone – don’t use it at home
9. Don’t try to impress people with your cell phone
10. don’t use a phone in a restaurant

Some of these rules, such as 2,4, and 9 seem to be the author’s personal pet peeves, but I suppose that they annoy a lot of people

I think the major theme in all of these articles was to respect other people’s privacy and right not to be forced to overhear your phone conversation. The authors all have slightly different notions of what this means.

Analyzing "The People We Become"

I agree and disagree with certain of Baron’s points. For the most part I think she has good ideas about how technology is affecting society but I think that she applies these ideas a little too broadly. I have chosen to analyze the section “Consequences of Being Always On” in the final chapters and have given my opinion about each section.

The Me Generation meets the Information Age: Personal Consequences
I completely agree with her that while people are “always on” and can be reached any time, any where, they are more isolated. I feel that I can’t say hi to acquaintances that I see on the quad because they are listening to music or on their phones. I feel slighted when I’m with someone and they pull out their phone to talk to someone else. They are ignoring me, a person that they are geographically next to, in order to connect to someone who isn’t physically around. Are they really connecting with anyone in this situation? I would argue no.

I agree that I feel exhausted and inefficient when I multitask with my computer. One of the reasons I gave up IMing is because I wasn’t getting anything done and had to spend more time doing less work because of technological distractions that I felt compelled to answer.

Knowing Right from Wrong – and Just plain knowing: Cognitive Consequences
I think that people are oblivious to the fact that the many texts, music, and other media on the internet do not belong to them. I distinctly remember in 9th grade during a debate when we argued whether Napster was alright. I was the only one in the class who did not illegally download music off the internet. They’re argument was, “Everyone does it? What’s the big deal?” I see no difference between this and stealing a CD from a music store. The same things goes for downloading anything from the internet. Unless the owner of that property specifically states that anyone can have it, downloading that information is, in my opinion, stealing. However, many people I know do not feel this way.

I’m Julie: the Social Consequences
I agree with certain parts of this section and disagree about others.

I do think that people use technology to avoid unwanted social interactions. However, I think there are some positive aspects to technology and how it defines our relationships with others. I agree with Baron that we have a lot more “weak ties.” How many facebook friends does everyone have? How many numbers in your cell phone? I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. People had weak ties before communication technology. Weak ties do not define our social interactions completely. Have more acquaintances doesn’t mean that you have less real friends. I do not think that people necessarily have less strong ties. Technology lets us keep in touch with people with whom we have strong ties. Society has changed with the advent of newer communitcation. It is expected that high school graduates will go away to college, sometimes far from home. People accept jobs away from their family and friends. Having telephones, email and other technologies allows people to keep in touch and retain those strong ties. With our highly mobile society, we need communication technology to keep in touch with those from which we move away.