Assignment #5

Please share three things (concepts, observations, themes) you learned after reading parts 5 & 6 of Ad Nauseam, and one question you have after finishing each section of the reading. (Be sure your questions begin with these three words on your blog post - "My question is..." )

1. I would first like to re-write John Lennon’s quote, because I idolize him, and the quote says it all. “Money doesn’t matter, it never did. Money is just another trap…it makes you sexy and intelligent and talented in a flash, poof! And it’s a lie.” ~John Lennon. It astounds me that capitalism, a human constructed socio-political system, has changed the way people THINK. People seriously value shopping as much, if not more, than most other activities in their daily lives. I know people who will admit that shopping is their favorite thing to do, or that it literally makes them feel better about things. Advertisements appeal to all of the things we want most out of life, and John Lennon pinpoints them best: sexiness, intelligent, and talented at something.

2. I like the section “Subliminal Seduction”. I have been wondering when this issue would be discussed in class, because it is one of the only ones I had been previously educated about. Obviously, sex is something that everyone is interested in at some level, and it seems that most subliminal messages have a sexual theme, no matter if the product is sexual or not. This is probably because anyone old enough to really have disposable income would be teenage and older, and receptive to those messages.

3. In the section “The Idiot Consumer”, there is suggestion that consumers used to be very naïve about advertising, and treated like sheep, but that now we are more observant and likely to pinpoint what is bullshit. I find it hard to believe that people have become that much smarter about advertisements. Our entire culture is built around consumption. People buy things every day because they are convinced that it is a necessity.

My question is… Has it been suggested, or taken seriously, that viewers should be made aware when subliminal messaging is used? It seems unethical to expose people to things without their consent.

Please read Steven Johnson's TIME magazine article, "How Twitter Will Change The Way We Live" (Summer 2009), and answer the questions below.




a. IYOW, identify the thesis of Johnson's article, in one sentence.
Twitter seems useless and excessive at first, but does have an appeal in that it lets one know what others are doing, without having to ask.
b. Describe TWO observations Johnson makes about Twitter with which you agree, and TWO observations Johnson makes about Twitter with which you disagree. Be clear and specific.

Agree:

“One of the most telling facts about the Twitter platform is that the vast majority of its users interact with the service via software created by third parties. There are dozens of iPhone and BlackBerry applications — all created by enterprising amateur coders or small start-ups — that let you manage Twitter feeds.” I can’t disagree with that. I know a lot of people who have cell phones that can access the internet, and it annoys me so much! Between texting, games, facebook, twitter, and taking pictures, it is as if they aren’t even aware of the world around them. I am wondering how interconnected these corporations have become. I am sure that Facebook, Twitter, and the i(stuff) industries have been in bed together for quite some time (for lack of a better term).

The author mentions activism as a venue in which Twitter can be very helpful I completely understand where he is coming from. It is a great way to organize something like a flash mob, in which a bunch of civilians create a scene spontaneously, and the same instant. Twitter would be very helpful, because thousands of people can be reached without having to know cell phone numbers, or give advanced warning.


Disagree:

“We still have national events, but now when we have them, we're actually having a genuine, public conversation with a group that extends far beyond our nuclear family and our next-door neighbors.” I am wondering if there is much value in this type of so-called ‘genuine’ conversation. Not much can be said in 140 characters, and there is no way to tell if someone’s comments are valid. In addition, those who aren’t involved with Twitter, such as myself, are automatically excluded. Wouldn’t it be more valuable if people had genuine conversations with their nuclear families and neighbors, anyway?

The other places a lot of value on the fact that information can be conveyed instantly. I can’t imagine anything is that important, that you can’t wait a day or so to find out over the phone.

c. PERSONAL QUESTION: Are you using Twitter for personal or professional use? Why or why not? Please describe your relationship to Twitter right now.

I have never even been on the Twitter website, nor have I seen a “Tweet”. I am completely disinterested, because it would be too time consuming to take part in. I am already uncomfortable with the degree to which I use my cell phone and Facebook. My on-going goal is to become less engaged with technology.