Final Reflections: Amanda DeBuse

My Self-directed Learning

During the first half of the semester, I focused a lot on the evolution of the book through history, starting with early church fathers hand-writing books, and so on. I read a lot in "The Discoverers", mainly in part IV, where it talks about geography, mainly the invention of the map. I read part XIII in this book as well. I said in my learning log regarding this chapter, "I learned about the first mediums of what people wrote on ... and the section also talked about book printing and the size and type of font for the books, and how these made carrying small books convenient." This helped me see one of the beginning stages of the evolution of the books, before the church fathers wrote their books, and after, when the printing press was making font font size, and how that rose to further inventions for the book. I also read various Wikipedia articles about the Protestant Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, knowledge, literacy, the various time periods we were studying, as well as articles about the actual evolution of the book, and its products, like E-books and iBooks. This helped shape my thinking about how people were living during these time periods, and what needed to happen in order for them to create each step in the evolution of the book, especially in the 20-21st centuries when more people found it convenient to read from a screen.

My Evolving Project

For my individual project, my first (main) argument was that book evolution creates a social divide because it was book evolution that first started this slew of digital media that is hurtng relationships. This was my first post, and Jackson pointed out in a comment that reading books enhances his relationships, so I decided to tweak my argument a little. I made it not so broad and said that this digital media that came from this book evolution is not hurting relationships, but is hurting society/civilization as a whole--civilization is hurt because relationships make up society. In a later reconstruction of my post, I followed Dr. Burton's advice and broke it down just a little more by saying that this is hurting communication as well, bringing it down to a very personal level. This idea of media hurting communication in civilization was brought into Laycee, Tailor's, and my group project. Laycee said that screens are creating a barrier between people, and Tailor said that people are losing their identity because of our digital modern culture. These all shape the main argument that technology and media is making communication and relationships deteriorate.

Communication and History

Communication is central to history and society because it is communication that makes a society, be it books, physically speaking to people, or digitally. It is central to history because it pretty much makes up our history since communication has changed and developed throughout the course of history. For example, like what I studied the majority of this semester, the evolution of the book was something that happened as history went on, and the medium of books was the way people communicated during their period of time. It is this history, this evolution of the book, technology, sciences, and so forth that changed my understanding of the contemporary world (today). This is because the things that were invented or started in history was a foundation of what we have now today--the written book in the 1600s was a foundation that needed to be there for today's digital media (and the book inventions in between), working in the fields was a foundation to factory work during the Industrial Revolution, which was a foundation to manual and business work now, the Scientific theory was the foundation of many scientific discoveries now, and so on. Our means of communication affect society in the past because, like it was already said, communication in the past spring-boarded communication in the future; the past gave us something to work off of. It affects society in the present because we are always finding different ways to communicate, be it new inventions, or new lingo. It is mainly digital communication that people use now in the present, and those new inventions will most likely be a digital product, and people would be using that new lingo on those devices. Communication will continuously change, no matter the medium, and in turn will change society because communication keeps society together.

Digital Media Deteriorating Communication and Relationships - Final Version

Have you ever heard your parents complain that the internet is ruining their children? Have you listened? Technology and social digital media sites are hindering people's communication and personal relationships.

Digital Media Deteriorating Communication and Relationships

Here is our group project about how technology/digital media is hindering people's communication and personal relationships. This short video just presents our individual ideas, me, Laycee, and Tailor.

Digital Media Deteriorating Communication and Relationships

Here is the video that our group made about how technology/digital media is hindering people's communication and personal relationships. This short video just presents our individual ideas, me, Laycee, and Tailor.

Tolerating Tolerance

I am experimenting with certain online animation apps to express my growing understanding between tolerance and radicalism. I've iterated several times already, relying mainly on text-based formats.

My new video format, while more interactive, is also incomplete. It requires a lot more time to compile. I'm hoping that future iterations will develop both my story and the actual video.

Future Goals:

• Incorporate more of the digital literacy aspect
• Experiment with voiceover and audio tracks
• Experiment with new forms of animation (colors, characters, objects, etc)

A Plea from the Past: What History Teaches Us About Our Future (3)

Hi all,

Me at one of my favorite places in the world.

My name is Michael Trauntvein.  I'm a student at BYU in the Construction and Facilities Management program.  I'm also an outdoorsman, a writer, an amateur cook, and a Mormon.

I've chosen a topic that is fundamental both to our understanding our history and our hope for our future.  We've heard time and again that "history repeats itself".  My purpose is to show you that not only does history repeat itself, but it does so at an increased rate with the development of civilization.

How can we learn from history?  Even more importantly, why should we learn from history?  Most would say that we study history so we can avoid mistakes that were made in the past.  In our Digital Age, learning about history has never been easier, and yet most people know as little about it as their parents and their grandparents do.  My thesis is that in order for the continued advancement and betterment of society, we must use the modern conveniences available to us learn from the past and take responsibility for our future.

Tolerating the Wrong Kind of Tolerance

Communication constraints have always limited the potential of civilization. We generally view new forms of communication as an opportunity for society to evolve and improve. Today's social media platforms, however, are increasingly minimizing the feedback loop between people, cultures, and even ideas. "Radical" ideologies today seem to grab traction more than ever before, relying on the fact that universal tolerance is not just expected, but required.

After several years of internal debate, I finally formalize my struggle in the form of one question: while tolerance prevents prejudice and hate, does it also promote radicalism and, consequently, prejudice?

Balancing Leisure to Balance Our Lives

This is a test run on presenting my ideas in a video format. Here I connect the importance of technology and communication to leisure and bringing balance to our lives.

RE: A Plea from the Past: What History Teaches Us About the Future

After coming to better understand the main idea of this group collaboration (the necessity of communication in the digital age), this week I decided to rework my chosen topic to better fit in with the main idea.

Hi all,

My name is Michael Trauntvein.  I'm a student at BYU in the Construction and Facilities Management program.  I'm also an outdoorsman, a writer, an amateur cook, and a Mormon.

I've chosen a topic that is fundamental both to our understanding our history and our hope for our future.  We've heard time and again that "history repeats itself".  My purpose is to show you that not only does history repeat itself, but it does so at an increased rate with the development of civilization.

Superheroes in the Making: Harnessing the Power of Technology and Collaboration

Once upon a time, we relied on experts for everything. We were told what to wear, how to act, what to like and what to despise. These experts were usually high up in the chain of command or organizational hierarchy. The prominence of their position – the ethos they exude – demands our attention. As such, we were compelled to heed their every word.

These experts go by different names. In the past, we call them kings (experts who hold power) and priests (experts who have the truth); today we call them scientists (experts who hold knowledge) and celebrities (experts who have charisma).

We trusted them because we believed in their expertise. We believed that their level of mastery in their study is one that we cannot reach. After all, most of them have spent years acquiring whatever expertise they are known for.

A scientist’s invention is the brainchild of his research in hopes of addressing an existing problem. People who actually use the invention, however, do not necessarily have the same vision as the inventor – they might see the invention as the solution to a different problem altogether. For example, Coca-Cola was first conceived as an alternative to morphine addiction, and to treat headaches and relieve anxiety. Today, it has become the most popular soda in the world.

However, people do not usually change the world single-handedly. Much like us, they need validation, or social proof, that their ideas are substantial enough to merit further exploration. For this, communication is critical, and modern technology has paved the way for exploration and collaboration with multiple people in an instant.

During the Age of Enlightenment, people would meet and talk in salons with a view to amuse or educate. Salons became centers of intellectual and social exchange. It was salons like these that would eventually sow the seeds of the French Revolution that overthrew the monarchy. While we do not seek to dethrone the experts of our day, the communication that we are now capable of has created numerous virtual salons where ideas are regularly disseminated. The collective expertise of the non-experts is comparable, if not superior, to that of an expert.

Due to the ease of collaboration, we no longer have to rely on experts for everything. This is not to say that we completely disregard the experts, but that we can work on par with the experts as they can provide significant value. The point is, working together, non-experts are capable of making substantial contributions to their field of study. 

You and I are capable of changing the world.

Tolerating Today's Communication Standard

I've explored the (possible) connection between radicalism and today's higher standard for tolerance. Today's ubiquitous communication mediums warn of prejudice and hate like never before. Facebook, blogs, online forums, podcasts, and other social media sites provide a personal and persuasive platform that previous generations never enjoyed.

These new tools provide an equally opportune environment for radicals who want to defend their beliefs, however drastic they may be. With the condition that tolerance is observed, society tends to turn a blind eye toward the radical.

While these communication platforms dramatically increase general awareness, they blur the already fuzzy line between tolerance and appeasement. Society is increasingly "tolerant" of behaviors and ideologies that were previously deemed immoral or even illegal. The fear of bigotry and prejudice inhibits courage to stand up for what's right.