The 21st Century World

Question #3

I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong with the idea of what Dov Seidman is saying when he talks about how one’s reputation is set much earlier in life today than in the past. Friedman discusses how with traditional résumés, individuals could choose what information the employer saw, and which pieces of them remained concealed. This method alone seems trivial when a more in depth and revealing method is available that could supplement résumé information. Assuming that the information that the companies uncover is verifiable and trustworthy, they should be encouraged to conduct internet searches on applicants, especially if the content was created by the applicant. People, be they employers or anyone else, are, after all, only using one’s past actions and behavior against them or in their favor. If any individual is upset with the reputation they have received due to information uncovered as a result of technological advances and information availability, they perhaps should have considered not doing what caused others to judge them the way they now do. While it is perhaps not the most desirable situation to have to worry that a mistake today could haunt you tomorrow, Friedman seems to state that it is the reality and we should just get used to it.

#2. Although no one has ultra thick skin that survives every harsh word or insult throne at him or her, it is much easier to hear insults from people that you do not know personally, why? Because they don't know you...and therefore are not directly insulting your person, but rather what you represent or for what you stand. Due to this idea, I think that although it is important to acknowledge the globalization of insults, it is entirely impossible to stop it. If someone does not want to see opinions of him or her, he or she merely has to turn off the computer and not search for them. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether or not you have thick skin, its whether or not you have to utilize the skin you have. Until the latter choice is unavailable, I do not see the problem.

Question 2:

Its hard to say what will happen as more people are exposed to instant feedback on the Internet. Some people may become angry and may seek revenge on those who harm them while others may develop an ability to ignore comments that are not based in truth. If it goes to far, potentially there may be a limit to what we say on the Internet regardless of laws.

Question 3

I think that the proceeding reputations on the Internet are a growing, but easily preventable problem. To me this goes beyond just college or getting a job, in fact for many people they get convicted for crimes because of what they put on the web. People have been arrested for posting videos they took with their phone while committing whatever crime it was, and then also post the whole story for their friends to read. Of course, this makes it very easy for cops to arrest and for prosecutors to charge on since the criminals made the evidence available to the whole world. It rather defeats the purpose of a search warrant and privacy if you tell the entire world every thing you do. In terms of college or a job, I think the solution is the same as the crime. Don’t do it. If you have something to say online that could possibly hurt you in the future either don’t say it, or at least don’t put it on your web page with your email address and IM name on it. There is a reason the Internet is great, it is because you can be anybody, so if you have to make an inappropriate comment get your self an alias, or even an anonymous account. As long as you don’t put the worst things you do on your easy to find personal page it shouldn’t be too much of a problem.

Question 2

I had never really thought about just how much people can be affected by the words written about them on the internet. Undoubtedly, some handle it better than others but to be a celebrity or important political figure in this day and age must be so infuriating. To have so many things published about you, true or untrue, can only be funny for so long. I can honestly say that I would not be able to handle such publicity. Even if I happened to find a mean blog about me, my feelings would definitely be very hurt, depending on the person writing it of course. This brings up the point that since so much material published about important figures is nothing more than gossip, it is easier to put aside. Nevertheless, it must be very difficult and occasionally emotionally painful to adjust to a life that is so directly in the public eye, such as those of celebrities, popular artists and political figures. My skin is definitely not thick enough to cope with that, or really any elevated degree of slander or gossip. I agree with Friedman’s argument that we should all try to develop thicker skins, as this is important to survive in our world today.

I think that every person at mpa has had a similar experece to this. you are sitting in the commons, suronded by other students but all of them are busy playing a vedio game so no one is actually talking. I think that this is a bad thing. While yes, technology is good fot a lot of things, (like freidmen said, the taxi driver could have been talking to his african parents) it also can make you feel very distant from the people you are with. Often when you are with some one they spend most of the time texting some one else, this makes the time you spend with that person signifiently less interesting. I think that if people could slow down and take more time to be interested in the the place they are, the world would go back to being as interesting as it was 10 years ago in that respect, and we could keep the technoligy, but just use a little self restriction on when to use it.

Question # 1
I think there are a couple lessons that can be taken from this Paris taxi anecdote. As technology becomes more involved in our lives, it is the responsibilty of the people to limit their use. It is rude to be doing a lot of activites while in the presence of another person, and not talking to them. People are using technology as an excuse to not communicate and therefore it is more socially acceptable to use your gadgets around other people. This year, photography has become more digital, which means there are more students using their laptops instead of being in the darkroom. There is less communication among students. Students will be engrossed with their laptop, having headphones on, or surfing the internet.

I can't say that I have ever had an experience to the extent of the one Friedman had but there have been times when I will see someone walking down the street talking to themselves only to later find out that they were in fact using a bluetooth. On one ocassion I thought someone was actually talking to me, but really they weren't. I think that there are a couple of lessons that we can learn from this. It is more normal now to see people talking to themselves, or to appear talking to themselves. Also, Friedman's experience is an eye opener to the bad side of technology. For example you might be talking to someone but you both might be on your computers so really it's like you're in a whole other world. Same with music and headphones. They are very secluding. So I agree with Linda Stone (from pg. 516) when she says technology can make the far seem close, and the close seem far away.

Question #1

From this anecdote, I think we can take away many ideas about technology. In today's society, we are so consumed with being connected with other people via e-mail, the internet, and cell phones that we forget to communicate in person. This results in everyone being so self involved that they forget to meet and talk with the people around them. People would rather send someone a text instead of talking to them in person or even calling them on the phone. We need to learn from this scenario that technology cannot replace human contact. Soceity needs to become personal again and bring back the human touch. Otherwise, everyone will become so self-absorbed and will not communicate with one another.

1. I think the most important thing from this anecdote is that it shows that societies communication skills are being replaced by technological communication skills. As Friedman says, this can help the far fell near, but the near fell far because two people don't usually talk anymore when they are in front of each other. All of the six things that he mentioned begin done were all somewhat technological. I feel that the most important lesson is to no let technology rule our life. IF we have a chance to talk to someone face to face, we should take it instead of waiting five minutes to get on our computer and talk with the same person or chat with others whose face you cant see.

3. Dov Seidman, a business ethicist, wrote (pp. 529-530) that "your reputation will follow you and precede you on your next stop. It gets there before you do. You don't get to spend four years of college getting drunk. Your reputation is getting set much earlier in life." Your thoughts? (No, I'm not asking about college drinking, but rather about the whole phenomenon Seidman discusses.)

I agree with his statement. Before you can move on to the next stop, the people who you are moving onto will want to know waht you were like at the spot before. They will ask around at whereever you were, say a college, so they will talk with the teachers, maybe coaches, people who knew you, and probably check your facebook and see how you come up on google search and stuff. They can probably get a pretty good idea of what you were like from this and find out a lot about your reputation which will now have a serious impact on your future. Also many peopel you know may go to work at places you want to work at, so the bosses can talk to them and get the down low on you, see what you were like from them. So your reputation can hinder you or help you a lot but it will have a factor, you can't escape it. I agree with Dov a lot and i think everyone going into college should remeber this. Your actions do have consequences!

3.

I agree with his statement. Before you can move on to the next stop, the people who you are moving onto will want to know waht you were like at the spot before. They will ask around at whereever you were, say a college, so they will talk with the teachers, maybe coaches, people who knew you, and probably check your facebook and see how you come up on google search and stuff. They can probably get a pretty good idea of what you were like from this and find out a lot about your reputation which will now have a serious impact on your future. Also many peopel you know may go to work at places you want to work at, so the bosses can talk to them and get the down low on you, see what you were like from them. So your reputation can hinder you or help you a lot but it will have a factor, you can't escape it. I agree with Dov a lot and i think everyone going into college should remeber this. Your actions do have consequences!

I agree with Seidman and Friedman on this concept in that you should be conservitive with the things you post online, because it will come back to bite you, i believe a person should have their own personal life, but should keep very caucios, i have seen many examples of this in the book and even an experiance from a close friend, who had weapos on his faceook and because of it did not get accepted to a college.

#2

Internet bullying has always been a joke, sure you could google your name and see what people are saying about you and your skin could take shots or you could just not care, not google your name, not turn on your computer. Cyberbullying is a joke, what I'm a beat your ugly butt up threw my monitor? Oh thats scary... Until someone is forced into looking at these or you are forced into participating its not really an issue. You don't have to have a myspace or facebook its a choice. And when you sign up for those you understand that people can say mean things about you.

To me there is one distinct lesson that should be taken from this example, and that is that humans need to become less attached to their gadgets and gizmos and spend more time with other human beings. I agree strongly with what Linda Stone said about how humans are becoming less and less accessible when the casual observer would say the opposite. While I have not ridden in many taxis in my life, and the rides that I have gone on have not been filled with interesting conversation with the taxi driver, however, I can definitely relate to this example. There have been times when I've come home and gone up to my room to do homework. While working on homework, I will listen to music, im, and text. My mom, also being absorbed in her work, will, on occasion, e-mail me a question instead of walking up stairs to ask in person.

Question 4

Although I have a great respect for the net after reading this chapter I do find myself slightly net worried. The net can provide many good sources of information and knowledge worldwide but with the good and reliable resources come the unreliable as well. As we have talked about previously, the net is open to the public and anyone can find information on the web. Some people however are unable to tell the difference between a reliable source of information and one that is unreliable. With the availibility of unreliable sources and lack of knowledge of how to navigate the web, there is a large margin of error leaving many people to be educated falsely.

Question 2: This one is talking about the part of Friedman's book where he says that the internet is changing everything. He says that with the internet, you can read everything that people write about you on websites like facebook. That means that you have to have pretty thick skin these days because you are going to read stuff about you, which you used to not hear because it wasn't out there on the internet for you to see.

I personally would get upset if i found stuff about my self on the interned. when i am on facebook i tend to look at other peoples profiles and not mine.

3.
I think that Dov Seidman is correct in that if you apply for a job the company isn't just going to look at your resume, they're going to find out whatever they can about you from the internet. This means that what you do earlier in life is going to have a larger impact on your reputation as an adult. I think that this may not be the most ideal situation but it is just something that people are going to have to live with because companies have the right to preform internet searches.

I definitely agree that "reputations are getting much earlier in life." Especially now after the facebook-drinking-suspension "scandal," it's really important that you're wary of how you're presented in cyberspace. Now it starts so early, in high school or even middle school, with facebook and myspace. The advantage to this is that young people have more time to practice vigilance about what is out there for employers and schools to see. However, young people often feel invincible, like it will never happen to them, which is unfortunate.

Question #3

While this may not be good for many individuals, I think that the new accessibility of a job applicant’s life ultimately benefits companies. Since employers can see more, employers will receive a more holistic view of a job candidate, and will thus have more information with which to make the best decision. People today will have to be more cautious about what they post on the internet, as that info is available to virtually anybody. An example would be those idiots from Eden Prairie who posted facebook pictures of themselves drinking. While their drinking would have been concealable in the past, these students must now pay for their mistakes in the flat world of high-speed internet and facebook. I can't give a definitive answer as to whether this new unforgiving transparency is a good thing, but I think Mark Twain’s quote on pg 530 provides the best policy on how to conduct yourself in the new world.

question 2

I think it is a good thing to say what one wants to about subjects. getting feedback from what you write can show if what you are writing is powerfull. it is not a bad thing to be able to know what other people are saying about you.

3. I completely agree with Dov Seidman on that statement. I hear all these stories of photos of teens on Facebook and MySpace getting drunk out of their senses and committing acts of utter stupidity. A college admissions person is one click away from discovering your flaws. And it doesn't just stop there. Once you get into college, college admissions people are replaced by those who may hire you for work in the future, and the same process starts all over again. It's kind of strange. We're trying to use Facebook/Myspace to show everyone all these details about us yet at the same time, depending on who you are, we need our lives to be more private than ever. Not that I have anything to worry about. Unlike Americans, Europeans know how to handle their drinking habits. Oh yeah, I went there.