The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit Export

@book{citeulike:200872, author = {Turkle, Sherry}, citeulike-article-id = {200872}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike09-20&path=ASIN/0671468480}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike01-21&path=ASIN/0671468480}, citeulike-linkout-2 = {http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike06-21&path=ASIN/0671468480}, citeulike-linkout-3 = {http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671468480/citeulike00-21}, citeulike-linkout-4 = {http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike07-20&path=ASIN/0671468480}, citeulike-linkout-5 = {http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0671468480}, citeulike-linkout-6 = {http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0671468480}, citeulike-linkout-7 = {http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?keywords=0671468480&index=books&linkCode=qs}, citeulike-linkout-8 = {http://www.librarything.com/isbn/0671468480}, comment = {(Thoughts on Chapter 4 - "Adolescence and Identity: Finding Yourself in the Machine") The key to this reading is Turkle's contention that in adolescence, individuals consciously reflect on themselves and on consciously create themselves. I am open to this idea, but I wonder how true it is. The individuals she talks about in this section certainly are doing this, but I wonder if a) they are already introverted and have a tendency to look inward and/or b) Turkle's questions and interviews have compelled them to think about themselves in ways that they didn't before. Do all adolescents consciously reflect and create? Or do some do so without thinking? Does it matter? Writing this last paragraph has made me aware that I may be confusing what Turkle says and what I initially thought she has been saying. On page 138, she only talks about "conscious self-creation," but she does not say "conscious reflection" or even awareness of this self-creation. Perhaps this is the difference between the introvert and the extrovert. But, maybe this is important still and perhaps Turkle is not considering it much in this chapter. And, I still believe that the chapter is biased towards the introverted. Okay, now my stream of consciousness is really going: on page 139, she contrasts fourth and fifth graders with adolescents by bringing up the issues of "explicit self reflection." Now, I'm back to my original questions. Much of this chapter is about "programming." What about using computer technologies in other ways that weren't available when she worked with these kids? How do issues of agency and control come up when talking about instant-messenging or writing a blog entry? This idea of Deborah trying to get the teacher's attention and refusing to do anything on her own is interesting, because I'm interested in knowing what makes a kid decide that something is worth trying out without prodding. There are other kids that I've seen who remind me of Deborah in the difficulty trying things out on their own, but their response isn't to get the teacher's attention, but to just not do anything. Even getting the teacher's attention requires motivation. Creating an artificial restriction or rule as a means to open up creative potential is in line with what many designers do and advocate. Deborah taught herself an important design rule! Various aspects of this chapter made me think about Nass and Reeves' Media Equation (a book I haven't read but have read a lot about and seen presentations). Turkle's qualitative study here seems to coincide with many things that they tried to demonstrate quantitatively: that people treat computers as if they were people. However, Turkle makes me think that people don't necessarily "think" of computers as people. Which is how I've seen The Media Equation treated. When I got to the end of the chapter and read the sentence, "Whether or not computer scientists ever create an artificial intelligence that can think like a person, computers change the way people think--especially about themselves," I thought is this the "real" lesson to be learned from the Media Equation? Perhaps by "lesson" I really meant "design implication." The Bruce story is hard to follow. He wants to create chaos, but think of the machine as a perfect, non-human means to doing so. Do I have this right? I am reminded of Avril Thorne's study personal trauma narratives while I am reading this. I wonder what she would say about some of these stories. Turkle, intentionally or accidentally, talks a lot about how these kids see themselves in relation to one or both parents (as opposed to friends or siblings). I wonder if parents are overemphasized here. Or, perhaps not, but I wonder if the others are underemphasized. Without consciously thinking of PL's comment from last week, I read Carla's story and wondered if learning or "living" was about learning to break the rules? I remember thinking during my Spring research that we often told kids about certain rules to follow but that we broke them in our everyday lives. Or, rather, that we broke rules all the time in order to accomplish our goals (perhaps not the rules that we were telling kids not break). Perhaps learning is about figuring out when and how to break the rules. I also remember one kid saying "We're kids... we're supposed to break the rules. That's what we do!" Important point that I'm not sure what to do with right now: "This kind of play with computation and models of the self.... It is not confined to the experts." ---=note-separator=--- A comment from our reading group: Is this a philosophical piece being framed as an anthropological piece? Is this still as relevant? Is it dated? }, day = {01}, howpublished = {Hardcover}, isbn = {0671468480}, keywords = {1digitalyouth, adolescence, agency, hci, identity, kids, literacy, theory}, month = {June}, posted-at = {2005-07-28 18:56:28}, priority = {4}, publisher = {{Simon \& Schuster}}, title = {The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit}, url = {http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike07-20&path=ASIN/0671468480}, year = {1984} }

TY - BOOK ID - citeulike:200872 L3 - citeulike-article-id:200872 SN - 0671468480 TI - The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit PB - {Simon & Schuster} KW - 1digitalyouth KW - adolescence KW - agency KW - hci KW - identity KW - kids KW - literacy KW - theory N1 - (Thoughts on Chapter 4 - "Adolescence and Identity: Finding Yourself in the Machine") The key to this reading is Turkle's contention that in adolescence, individuals consciously reflect on themselves and on consciously create themselves. I am open to this idea, but I wonder how true it is. The individuals she talks about in this section certainly are doing this, but I wonder if a) they are already introverted and have a tendency to look inward and/or b) Turkle's questions and interviews have compelled them to think about themselves in ways that they didn't before. Do all adolescents consciously reflect and create? Or do some do so without thinking? Does it matter? Writing this last paragraph has made me aware that I may be confusing what Turkle says and what I initially thought she has been saying. On page 138, she only talks about "conscious self-creation," but she does not say "conscious reflection" or even awareness of this self-creation. Perhaps this is the difference between the introvert and the extrovert. But, maybe this is important still and perhaps Turkle is not considering it much in this chapter. And, I still believe that the chapter is biased towards the introverted. Okay, now my stream of consciousness is really going: on page 139, she contrasts fourth and fifth graders with adolescents by bringing up the issues of "explicit self reflection." Now, I'm back to my original questions. Much of this chapter is about "programming." What about using computer technologies in other ways that weren't available when she worked with these kids? How do issues of agency and control come up when talking about instant-messenging or writing a blog entry? This idea of Deborah trying to get the teacher's attention and refusing to do anything on her own is interesting, because I'm interested in knowing what makes a kid decide that something is worth trying out without prodding. There are other kids that I've seen who remind me of Deborah in the difficulty trying things out on their own, but their response isn't to get the teacher's attention, but to just not do anything. Even getting the teacher's attention requires motivation. Creating an artificial restriction or rule as a means to open up creative potential is in line with what many designers do and advocate. Deborah taught herself an important design rule! Various aspects of this chapter made me think about Nass and Reeves' Media Equation (a book I haven't read but have read a lot about and seen presentations). Turkle's qualitative study here seems to coincide with many things that they tried to demonstrate quantitatively: that people treat computers as if they were people. However, Turkle makes me think that people don't necessarily "think" of computers as people. Which is how I've seen The Media Equation treated. When I got to the end of the chapter and read the sentence, "Whether or not computer scientists ever create an artificial intelligence that can think like a person, computers change the way people think--especially about themselves," I thought is this the "real" lesson to be learned from the Media Equation? Perhaps by "lesson" I really meant "design implication." The Bruce story is hard to follow. He wants to create chaos, but think of the machine as a perfect, non-human means to doing so. Do I have this right? I am reminded of Avril Thorne's study personal trauma narratives while I am reading this. I wonder what she would say about some of these stories. Turkle, intentionally or accidentally, talks a lot about how these kids see themselves in relation to one or both parents (as opposed to friends or siblings). I wonder if parents are overemphasized here. Or, perhaps not, but I wonder if the others are underemphasized. Without consciously thinking of PL's comment from last week, I read Carla's story and wondered if learning or "living" was about learning to break the rules? I remember thinking during my Spring research that we often told kids about certain rules to follow but that we broke them in our everyday lives. Or, rather, that we broke rules all the time in order to accomplish our goals (perhaps not the rules that we were telling kids not break). Perhaps learning is about figuring out when and how to break the rules. I also remember one kid saying "We're kids... we're supposed to break the rules. That's what we do!" Important point that I'm not sure what to do with right now: "This kind of play with computation and models of the self.... It is not confined to the experts." N1 - A comment from our reading group: Is this a philosophical piece being framed as an anthropological piece? Is this still as relevant? Is it dated? AU - Turkle, Sherry PY - 1984/06/01/ UR - http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike09-20&path=ASIN/0671468480 ER -