Thoughts on Naïveté & Awareness- An opinion piece

We haven’t really reconciled any of these. If the questions have been raised, they haven’t been dealt with. There seems to be great reluctance (often under that guise of being more liberal minded or forward thinking) to face several of these issues or to consider data that is unpopular because it questions the infallibility of technology. This is somewhat in response to the recent facebook conference, but also in response to several statements I have heard whilst in study, at conferences, and working as a teacher. I’ll preface this by saying it is an opinion piece.Naevite and technology and the reluctance to deal with these questions seems to have become characteristic of this time in history. We don’t fully appreciate the various ways in which people can be manipulated through various media. This is raised in Potter’s article about the need for a cognitive understanding of media literacy and digital media. He makes the point that we can’t really create meaningful educational experiences because we don’t fully understand how media impacts the brain. And this is perhaps why there is tremendous ease with dismissing concerns around technology because we don’t fully understand the ramifications of the multi-media experience and the digital media experience.What I think we need to look to are other studys and presentations of source information that make it clear that the media has a tremendous opportunity (whether or not it is use) to manipulate the data that it presents.Any hypnotist, for example can tell you how media can be used to create opportunities for hypnotic suggestion. One exmples is video games. A the beat of a human heart can create a pre-hynotic state of suggestionability, the music in video games is often set to the beat of a human heart.Things that are violent, corporately interested, or addiction to the game (in some instances, games are fiscal enterprises in themselves requiring users to pay for their online world) can be presented as completely acceptable concepts. The point here is the potential malleability of the user- in a way that they are unaware.This in itself is information that is extremely important and if we are unaware of the potential consequences we can not be said to be responsible (I am not saying we are not culpable, but I am saying we are not behaving in a way in which we are taking responsibility for our actions because we are making uniformed choices). I’m not saying that video games are dangerous, rather that unless we are aware of the various ways in which the material can be used to manipulate us, we potentially face some serious difficulties.Concerns here can also be seen around television. I have heard countless times various individuals state “Media literacy isn’t brain surgery or rocket science,” but it is, unless you’re aware of the various way in which media can be used to manipulate information. A tv broadcast can easily alter information with a couple of edits and some B roll. Someone can completely alter what is being said. So they can present something entirely the opposite of what has been said. Most people don’t know what B roll is, let alone how it is being used in their daily lives.We trust the media to discern on our behalf (for the sake of time), then we place our trust in certain sources (public or private broadcasters, but if we are not aware of their biases, can we trust their materials? This is a question of basic media literacy skills).The other thing that I find surprising, particularly at the facebook – was how people feel that it isn’t important to protect privacy information because there was so much available that no one would look at it, that the more information posted the better because cybercriminals would be overwhelmed with too much personal information, it was too obvious that the information was stored so criminals wouldn’t bother, and that people understood that what they posted on the internet is what they are responsible for.I would argue that there is a difference between knowing and understanding, that being, a level of personal engagement. Perhaps we know that we are responsible for what we place on the internet into the public domain, but we do not understand the implications of that or how it affects us.Unless you can fully prepare someone for the ramifications of their actions and you can make that clear, then people don’t fully understand.It should be noted that the front page of the metro only 4 days after the conference reported a new kind of cybercrime which utilised SNS in order to obtain personal information to perpetrate identity theft and fraud, particularly with banks.The concept of anonymity is an interesting one- anonymity in warfare for example, has removed the face to face element of fighting- and so we have removed the human element, we don’t feel like we are blowing up a human, we feel like we are blowing up a target. We don’t feel like we are perpetrating a crime again a human, we are perpetrating a crime against a target. We lack introduction and understanding of people that we might harm, so a psychological study is required here into the behavioural uses of the internet and those studies need to be employed in media literacy to understand people’s behaviours and motivations in dealing with new technology, so we can create better educational understandings and experiences, so that we can create better citizens who understand and are aware fully of the implications of their digital actions. And so that we can ensure that everyone’s best interests are being served.