Study Journal 4

10/27/2015

*What is the role that trust plays in financial interactions? If you know and trust someone, what about that makes you more likely to give them your money? Is it because you assume they are less likely to rip you off? Is it because you assume you have some ability to seek recompense if they do? In reality, there is no more guarantee (objectively) that a person you know will protect your money than that a person you don’t know will protect your money. I believe that trust only makes a difference because the allure of increase is so strong that people essentially use trust as an excuse to give their money out and hope it multiplies

*In a similar vein, it seems that when money is on the line it brings out the basest instincts of everyone involved. This whole video is seeming to point out certain groups as being at fault for the dot com burst. However, the reason those stocks had such meteoric rises and plummets was also due to normal investors betting their money against those stock fortunes. I would posit that both the success and failure (but especially failure) of one’s money in the stock market are as much a fault of the investor as they are of the “big money groups.” I’m sure I would feel differently if I were in that situation, but looking at it from the outside it seems clear to me that no one was thinking rationally about their decisions.

*In a sense, it’s not simply the fact that people lost money that ire was raised. That is to say, it’s not the simple act of losing personal property (or the symbolic representation of potential holdings, which is the function of money). Rather, it’s an issue of pride. People lost money and they reacted strongly because they had made a decision to invest in that particular company, and so were reacting in that way in order to not have to acknowledge that they made a mistake. The humble thing to do would be to learn from that experience and say “I won’t make that mistake again.” Clearly, those on wallstreet are not inclined to be humble.

10/29/2015

*”The human dilemma is as it has always been.” Here’s the funny thing about the past--it happened before we were born. I’m not saying I disagree with Postman, but it seems interesting to me that he hangs the introduction to his whole talk on this flimsy statement. It seems to me that the technology of today has in fact changed the human dilemma, or at least the way we approach the “human dilemma.” Centuries ago humankind struggled to find enough food to last until tomorrow. Today, we look much further ahead and on a much more abstract than mere subsistence. While there is some element of similarity here, I would argue that it is fundamentally different than the past, and it is technology which has effected that result.

*Postman talks about the tradeoffs of new technologies. He reminds us of the negative effects that technologies can have. However, these are almost always recognized in hindsight. The reason our culture keeps growing is that when new technologies are introduced, those technologies are pretty unanimously accepted. Our technological advance kind of depends on our inability to avoid thinking about any negative effects.

*”Every new technology benefits some and harms others.” I also take issue with this statement. The only true example of this pattern Postman gives are from the printing press. His example of the television doesn’t really hold up. I feel like this statement applies less to technology in specific, and more accurately to social/cultural events in general. It wasn’t really the printing press that created that dichotomy of benefit and harm. It was the preexisting differences between Catholicism and protestants that had been going on for years. Did the printing press help? Certainly. But the harm and benefits can’t be assigned to the domain of the technology only.

11/3/2015

*I would say that the philosophy inherent in computers persuades the “computer person” to discriminate less amongst kinds of information. When all information is equally available, then cat memes become as valuable as rocket science. The “computer person” values information by quantity, rather than applicability or usefulness. The utility of knowledge is increased y the more random a fact is.

*What Postman labels as “radical” is very different from the typical “radicality” that is held by the day-to-day society. Most people consider conservatism/radicalism as being ethically related -- conservatives hold to old traditions and values, radicals break out of the molds created by the old values. When Postman talks about radicals, what he means is someone who latches onto an emerging technology and whose influence ends up shaping the way culture forms around the new technology. His rhetoric is confusing and conflicting

*While I understand his cautions, I also look at the state of our culture, especially since the time which he gave that talk, and think that no one is really going to pay attention to his admonitions of viewing technology as a "strange intruder." I understand the points he makes, but if he really understands culture, he understands the you can't simply tell people to "think about whether the thing that everyone around you is doing might not have some negative effects." There is definitely a lemming-like aspect to technological adaptation, and that's going to be much stronger that a few people who dip their toe in the water and decide that it's too deep for them.