On Tue, 26 May 2009 06:20:12 -0700, Helweg-Larsen, Marie wrote: >I had two other reactions to the article. First, I'm also skeptical of the >"new technology will make us all go to hell" media coverage.
Oh, it's just another sign of the impending apocalyse (2012?) ;-) >I'm sure there are teenagers who will abuse (to detrimental psychological >effects) any activity (technological or otherwise). I do think cell phones >and texting are here to stay. No doubt but only for a while until the next technological development changes everyday behavior patterns. I still can't fathom the "apparent" widespread usage/promotion of Twitter (I sympathetize with Jon Stewart on this) and wonder when it's 15 minutes will be up. >I don't know a single teenager (poor or otherwise) who does not have a >cell phone (my daughter is 17 so I know lots of teenagers). I think it would be useful to have usage surveys on this point. I'm willing to bet that there are some teenagers who are prohibited from using things like cell phone for religious, social/cultural or other reasons (the Amish and other groups come to mind). I also believe that economic factors will play a significant role. >Cell phones in fact seem to have given communication to the poor. When >I was in Honduras this spring building houses in a village in which there >was no electricity then villagers had cell phones (they walked to town to >recharge them). It is problematic to compare other countries with the U.S., especially telephone use in Latin America where putting up cell towers is much, much cheaper than laying and maintaining phone lines. The cost of a cell phone is not the issue though, it is the price of access to the cell system where the companies make their profits. In the U.S., qualifying for a plan can be difficult for certain families (forcing them to use more expensive prepaid cell phones and phone cards which limit how much can be done). >Second, I think as with all new technology there is a period of adjusting >to when/how use is appropriate. Many cafe's in Copenhagen have a sign >on the window that prohibits cell phones (a pictogram). Most of my >professor friends have a note on the syllabus that prohibits texting (or even >having the cell phone out during class). Concerts are now often introduced >with a "turn off your cell phone and enjoy an hour of uninterrupted music". >I'm sure movie theaters will soon ask people to not text (I do find it rather >annoying myself because the screens are so bright in the dark theater). But there are significant differences in attitudes about what constitutes appropriate usage of things. A key difference between the U.S. and other countries is American's love of their guns which seems to be much less intense in other parts of the world (well, at least those areas not presently a war zone). As teachers we might be somewhat less concerned with texting than those students who demand that they have a right to bring hidden guns on campus and in class. One can't tell when another distraught student might decide to go on killing spree in school and the more students who are packing, the greater their ability to protect themselves (or so they argue). But, as a teacher, we might want to be more sensitive in thse situations because a student might be having a really, really bad day and who knows what he'll do if the prof pisses him off. >Marie > >PS. My parents were driven insane by my non-stop talking on the phone >when I was a teenager (in part because no one could call us or use the >phone when I was using it). Teenagers always seem to find ways to do >annoying things! Trust me, if the most annoying thing that teenagers do is talk on the phone or texting (as long as its not a pathological levels), parents should consider them lucky. There are many worse things that they could be regularly engaged in. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
