UberNoggin

Most folks who know me know that I disagree with the idea of Natives and Immigrants in terms of technology (ala Prensky). Today’s high schoolers and undergrads are not natives to technology. They don’t have some magical innate ability to understand new technologies. What they usually have is a clear lack of fear when encountering a new technology. They aren’t afraid to try to figure it out and it makes them look more “native.”

As is typical, though, it’s easier to criticize someone’s idea and much harder to suggest a replacement so I’ve been thinking hard about better terms to describe the almost palpable difference between “us” and “them,”  looking for a metaphor that helps us understand rather than label, empower rather than excuse. So here’s the idea I’ve been playing with recently. It may not be the right one so I welcome feedback.

Revolutionaries and Beneficiaries

Revolutionaries: Those who have been and are involved in the development, application, and implications of technology accessible to the masses. Regardless of age or education, these are the folks who develop new technologies or ways of thinking about technologies that pave the way for mass adoption. This also includes those who think about the application and effects of these technologies (educators, philosophers, futurists, early adopters etc)

Beneficiaries: Those who benefit from the actions of the Revolutionaries via mass accessible technologies and their application. For example, my students don’t have to wrestle with whether using a word processing program is beneficial to their work because others (educators, technologists, researchers, previous users) have already done the footwork to prove that the convenience and ease that word processing possesses over a typewriter, for example, are worth learning the software.

These are not closed categories. A Beneficiary could easily become a Revolutionary if he/she begins to think about technology in new ways rather than just benefiting from advances and adopting them. Revolutionaries may become Beneficiaries if they settle into a technology they are comfortable with and stop comparing it to other options or stop thinking about the implications of that technology’s use.

I would suggest that most of us are both Beneficiaries and Revolutionaries. When I drive my car or use my microwave I typically don’t think about the way they’ve changed my life. I press the buttons and my popcorn pops. If my microwave breaks and I have to learn to pop popcorn on the stove I may start thinking more like a Revolutionary: “Wow! That microwave really changes the way I live.”

Neither way of thinking is superior to the other. Both have their place. If I allowed myself to get bogged down in Revolutionary thinking every time I switched on a light I’d not get much done. If I blindly adopt every new technology that comes along my quality of life would, no doubt, drop as I tried to use everything in the course of my day without judging them for their usefulness.

So? What do you think? Do these terms ring truer to you than the Native and Immigrant? Are there better terms to describe these ways of thinking and adoption?

Mark and I often do a bit of brainstorming on the big dry erase boards in our dining room. Lately, we’ve been churning out research-type questions about virtual worlds. I thought I’d post them to save them from little hands and erasers and perhaps to get some discussion going.

• What is a virtual world? what definition works best to aid research? Is it different than a virtual environment?
• How does the ability to see others’ friends list change our perception of them? How is that perception different in a space where we can’t who someone is friends with?
• How can identity formation mechanics be made interoperable? Should they?
• How is the style/goal of the world or environment tied to expected avatar behavior (ex. Miis with guns?)?
• What are the trust implications of communication in multiple virtual spaces? (ex. Do I trust someone more who I know in SL and on Twitter?)
• Are social networks virtual worlds?
• Identity: does more information = more trust, does more or less choice allow for more succinct identities?
• Are we more or less immersed in spaces where we have more choices in identity formation?
• Does less identity = less immersion?
• Does greater choice in identity formation result in more accurate identity portrayal? more trust worthy identity?
• How would MUVEs and MMORPGs be changed if more SNS mechanics were added to them?
• What influences greater number of friends in an MMORPG/MUVE? mechanics of friendship? purpose or advantage of friendship? personality expression?
• Do SL or FB users have more friends? How does introversion or extroversion influence number of friends in each space?
• Is FB a more powerful social network because it can incorporate multiple identities and connections? Pull info from other spaces?
• Do we “know” people more if we”know” more than one of their online identities? If one of those identities is a SNS rather than a MUVE or MMORPG?
• How do we verify someone’s identity? What info do we need to feel that we know who they are?

These are pretty disorganized but you probably get the drift of where the ideas are going. I haven’t had a chance to think through any one of them to the point of satisfaction but Mark and I have been wrestling with the definition of virtual world because we just don’t feel that the definitions offered by others are prepared to deal with the multitude of spaces that are popping up online. So far we think that a virtual world is one in which:

• the world goes on whether you’re logged in or not; you can’t pause the world
• digital
• hosted remotely
• capacity more multi-user
• users are represented by some kind of avatar, identity that they create (even if it’s text-based or very limited in construction)

What would you add? Would you take anything away?