Oh mom it is just a game

Posted: 2013/10/04 in Uncategorized

woman on the wall

I am writing this due to the urgency of the message. My grandkids have all been sucked into the void of translucent light and are at risk of falling into the bottomless pit of self-delusion and social anarchy.

Translucent light is the see through light in the output of the electronic device that permits light to pass through but diffusing it so that persons, objects, etc., on the opposite side are not clearly visible. Programmers project images in these devices to present the user with an opportunity to destroy a perceived enemy or win a game that requires minimal skill on the user’s side. Users have the perception that they have destroyed an enemy or won a game, when in reality the users have lost time they can never recover while being manipulated by self- indulgence into an illusion world of translucent light.

The imaginary images users are mesmerized by, which are perceived to be real by them, afford users the opportunity to become a master in control of their fictional environment while in reality the images are just an illusion created by a programmer to manipulate a response by the users. They are programmed digital on and off circuits in a directed sequence to project an intended image on a screen and provide an achievable predicted response.

Users have been tricked into the belief that the images they see on the screen of their electronic devices are real in that moment of time.

The electronic devices rob users of their innocence and instill the pride of self-accomplishment in them without accomplishing anything. Most of them do not realize this they transition into adult life and have to work to eat and survive in a society of social norms and restrictions imposed on them by laws.

They learn to destroy without the aftermath of destruction or real blood. They do not have to rebuild structures they destroy or dispose of dead blown apart bodies or recover from injuries they may have received while in the game or pay the bills for the weapons and ammunition they fire without regard to cost and availability.

Prayer and honest self-love become boring and time consuming tasks that are artificial and carry no value because there are no immediate results. Learned violence and destruction with no consequence or reprisals seem to become a more viable solution to real problems in their lives.

The danger is in the consequence of their actions. Society is structured for compliance to rules and norms.

When learned behavior from the electronic devices pores over into the daily lives of the users, reactions to negligent situations i.e. someone accidentally bumps into them, then the breach is met with a violent reaction with little or no thought of the consequence.

The electronic device is training our kids to react to a situation with little or no regard to the consequences of their behavior. Their worldview is based on an egocentric survival and not on the good of the community. They view themselves as masters and have little patience to create solutions to long-term problems.

Please do not misunderstand: Electronic devices have great educational value, technology and communication devices in our culture are almost indispensable. However, because kids are in safe environment while using electronic devices and are not aware of the subtle addiction that takes place over time, children and teenagers who use these devices should be strictly monitored and controlled because kids do not realize the danger of them.

The innocence lost is a love for simple things like the smelling of a flower for the first time. Planting a seed and watching it grow. Being able to tie your own shoes. Playing with a friend or something as simple as going outdoors and walking bare footed. Meeting a friend and falling in love. Learning to cook.

The innocence in us as children is the divine nature. We do not have to look for the divine nature outside ourselves. We were the divine nature when we were children, now as adults we seek to find something we lost as children.

you are known

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Managerial Omelet Anyone?
    How Interactive Media Can Scramble Your Brain
    Strategy + Business
    You’re sitting at a meeting checking your e-mail on your iPad or your texts on your phone. Or, if you’re like the average college student, your attention is divided at least three ways, among the lecturer, your laptop, and your text messages. You think you’re keeping up with it all, but new research from Stanford says you’re not. Studies from Clifford Nass’s Communication Between Humans and Interactive Media Lab clearly indicate that those who engage in media multitasking are unable to ignore irrelevant information and have difficulty identifying which information is important. Even watching that stream of type crawl across your television screen during the evening news makes you less likely to retain information from either the program or the crawl. Media multitasking makes managers less thoughtful and more inclined to exercise poor judgment, Nass says. And companies that encourage people to respond instantly to e-mail make the problem worse. At the very least, managers should insist that employees bring no electronic devices to meetings. —Andrea Ovans

    This is from the Harvard Business Review

    • How Interactive Media Can Scramble Your Brain

      Many of us have suspected that the new interactive media—smartphones and the like—adversely affect the ways in which people think and behave. Personally, I find nothing quite so annoying as people who multitask on their devices while I am trying to have a face-to-face conversation with them. Now, research by Clifford Nass, the Thomas M. Storke Professor at Stanford University, proves us right. Nass, who studies the social and psychological aspects of human–media interaction and directs the Communication between Humans and Interactive Media (CHIMe) Lab, lends scientific weight to the suspicions of modern Luddites like me. He also points to more serious consequences for human development and workplace productivity than even the most pessimistic of us feared.

      Nass found that the average college student accesses three media sources simultaneously, and 25 percent actually use four or more. The research clearly indicates that such media multitasking impedes the ability to focus on relevant information, or more simply, to pay attention. For example, if you watch a television show running a “headline tracker” across the bottom of the screen, you are less likely to retain information from either the main program or the crawl.

      Nass cites studies showing that those who engage in multitasking have difficulties identifying what information is important and are unable to ignore irrelevant information. The sad irony is that multitaskers are actually less able to multitask than the rest of us because, as Nass explains, they can’t help but think about what they aren’t doing! He argues that this inability to process information effectively makes managers less thoughtful and therefore more inclined to exercise poor judgment. For example, studies show that multitaskers are less able to write coherently than people who focus on one thing at a time. That comes as no surprise to professors who have attempted to give essay exams to students who spend all semester in class ostensibly “listening” and “discussing,” while at the same time texting friends, listening to music, playing online poker, and doing an Internet search to find the answer to the question the prof just asked.

      But it gets worse: Multitaskers are not only paying no attention to their profs (or to their bosses, co-workers, and customers in the room with them), they have problems with social interactions in general. In terms of developing what Daniel Goleman calls “emotional intelligence,” new media addicts are poor at reading other people. In short, they tend to be socially and emotionally immature. They prefer to retreat to the comfort of texting rather than deal with potential emotional connection (and conflict) with those in the same room.

      Nass points out that corporate policies encouraging media multitasking—those that require people to respond to all emails in a matter of minutes, keep team members’ chat windows open, and use personal cell phones for work purposes—actually impair the ability of employees to do their jobs and, in particular, to work effectively in teams. He concludes that such corporate policies are “re-wiring the brains” of employees and suggests that, at a minimum, mangers should insist laptops be turned off during live meetings.

      It’s not a bad idea. For five years, I tried convincing my MBA students that if they “would turn off and tune in” to our live discussions, they would learn more and have better relationships with classmates. But I got nowhere, ultimately concluding that my importuning was mere noise in an overwhelmingly digital world filled with thousands of voices more influential (and fun) than mine. And it didn’t help that the chairman of my department didn’t have a single book on the shelves in his office, and the only things on his desk were a computer, iPad, and smartphone.

      Interestingly, Nass’s own university sits on the edge of Silicon Valley—where it is the prime nurturing ground for those responsible for the technological advances he warns against. And those Stanford alums seem unworried by any negative reactions to the new technologies they turn out by the week. Indeed, most of them seem to believe it’s everyone else’s duty to adjust to the new world they are creating. To the engineering mind, the new is always better than the old, and those who question the human consequences of emerging technologies are no better than flat-earthers. I’d suggest, instead, that the new is objectively different than the old, but judgments as to which is better require broader forms of analysis than the narrow ways in which engineers (and Silicon Valley VCs) assess technology.

      So if we can’t count on those making the new machines to consider their potential human costs before selling them to us, and if we don’t want government to regulate emerging technologies, how are we to prevent potential social and psychological harm in an era when the average nine-year-old now owns a cell phone? As parents, educators, and employers, we need to pay serious attention to what Nass and other researchers are saying, and insist that our kids, students, and employees turn their devices off. By disconnecting from their phones and iPads, they can reconnect to the people in the room. That’s what I should have done with my MBA students.

      James O’Toole is a senior fellow in business ethics at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics and the author of 17 books, including The Executive’s Compass and Leading Change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s