The Growing Tech Divide
I played with my first iPad this week. After wiping the drool off my chin, I was able to walk away without assistance. But, yes, I want. Or, more honestly: I lust.
On Sunday morning at church, the high schoolers are often seen at their own table at coffee hour, playing on their iPods. I take some blame — or praise — for this predicament as I gave them the password for the church wireless (with some ground rules). Now, even when they go to church, they are connected.
I got an HTC Droid Incredible last week. (Translation: an awesome touch-screen phone, Google’s answer to the iPhone.) It’s amazing. I can now stream NPR on long runs while charting my time and pace, I can access info like you wouldn’t believe, maintain my Foursquare mayoral status as several Grand Forks and Hallock hot spots, and tweet away.
But with all this awesome technology I wonder: is there a growing technology divide in our culture, and in the church?
I know someone, a very high-functioning retiree, who almost daily feels frustrated and challenged-to-the-breaking-point by his lack of computer skills. He wants to join in on the tech fun, but just doesn’t have the skill set.
I know other folks, even younger ones, that despise email and wouldn’t use an iPad if they were given one for each room in the house.
I know a youth who takes pride in not having a facebook account. I know people who despise electronic books — though they have certainly never read one. I know many people who see technology and know, just as instinctively as some know how to work an iPad, that it’s not for them.
And — no happy conclusion here — I just wonder what to make of all this. Will the tech divide become a real cultural barrier? Will there be a Tech Party movement to rival the Tea Party crowd? If changing technology is just in the water of the 21st century, what happens to those who can’t bring themselves to drink?
image by channah
I've Been More Trustworthy for Months And Didn’t Even Know It
According to a recent study in the Journal of Marketing Communications, men with beards look more credible than those without (story here). The study wasn’t exactly extensive, but it showed some models endorsing products while clean shaven, and then the same guys doing the same with beards. The bearded version were deemed more trustworthy — at least when it was well-trimmed.
I’ve been sporting a short beard for a few months now. Now I get why everyone keeps asking my opinion all the time, responds more positively to my sermons, and is pushing me to become a notary. Not really. Actually, I’ve enjoyed more of the slightly counter-culture aspect of the beard (ok, small steps, I still tuck in my shirt at work).
My hunch is that societal opinions of beards wax and wane with the times. I read an article a while back that analyzed the goatees of the “new evangelical” leaders, and concluded they signified, in part, their individualistic stands if I remember right (I lost the link, sorry).
To be honest, by the time my fashion sense has caught up to the cool thing, the thing usually changes. I was a slow adoptee of cargo shorts in high school — never thought they’d catch on. I thought grey and khaki was a fashion faux pas for years after it was styling. And don’t even get me started on flat front pants.
I find studies like this beard one very intriguing, as they point to our stereotypes. Often, the results are more distressing — when the studies look at our perceptions of race, or weight, or gender. We are a culture that judges, quickly, by sight. And then our actions reflect our snap judgements.
But, at the end of the day, this study is playful and, as it benefits me, is brilliant. So, hopefully, this beard thing will be cool for a while. Heck, I say it will be. Trust me.
Back in the good ole days
Last week, I heard a fascinating show on NPR discussing journalistic ethics and the presidential campaign. You can probably guess the main topics discussed: the relative ignorance of the average voter, whether journalists should vote or contribute to campaigns, FOX news, that sort of thing. The conversation was fascinating to me, mainly because it was a great example of the move from modernism to post-modernism.
This way of listening struck home, when a caller phoned in and said….
Why can’t we just have things like they used to be? When I was growing up, we didn’t worry about journalists’ political affiliation, they just reported in a balanced and unbiased way, and we read the facts. Why all this talk of bias, different perspectives, and the like? I wish we could just get back to how I remember it: when the facts were the facts and that’s what reporters reported.
I laughed out loud. I sympathize with the caller, but the “facts” of previous generations were just as biased and reflective of culture and perspective as today–actually, probably much more so. We can’t put the proverbial monkey back in its cage.
We must talk about how journalists meld their personal opinions to their news stories, because they’ve always been doing so whether we like it or not.
We must talk about advertising dollars and the news media because it’s really all about readership.
We must talk about 24-hour cable news channels because they dumb down the public square to tickers on the bottom of the screen and some star’s latest hi-jinx.
It’s a complicated world out there. The monkey is free range. And I love it.
image by Dave Hiebert
Atlanta's 11 least influential people
Amidst a culture that seems to value more one’s potential influence than one’s person-hood, this video reminds me that God calls us to unexpected places, and even more, that Holy Spirit is blowing even without the church. While CNN Videos spend thousands covering such things as John Edward’s bagel before tonight’s debate, I’m thankful for journalists of other varieties.
I loved:
- the openness of the reporter and photographer
- the artist’s eye for irony
- in a different sort of way, the non-preachy sermoness
- the extension from human figures to animals too
I would have changed:
- added a piece on the poor in Atlanta’s nursing facilities
- perhaps also another on a lower-income failure-to-thrive child
- added a call to action
For the video on which this post is based click here: 11 Least Influential People
Here’s a link to Troy’s blog, the Presbyterian pastor chosen as the 6th least influential.
Finally, the article summary in Creative Loafing.
Reading the airwaves
In an attempt to post on something non-churchy–yes, shocking–I decided to share some big news. Not only do we have a TV this year, we may be able to get more than the five channels we currently receive.
Conversations with Katie and Sam led us to Freeview, a free service that somehow reads all those signals flowing around outside and translates them into entertainment, news, music, and radio channels on the TV. All we have to do is buy a Freeview box (I’m plugging next month’s budget bigtime) and we’re off. As an added bonus, the Freeview box comes with a remote which will almost be worth the $40 on its own since we don’t seem to have a remote for the TV here.
For those of you who know me well, this may all seem a bit strange since Megan and I don’t have a TV in Decatur–and other than football Saturdays, I don’t miss it. Here, though, I am more likely to watch TV since 1) we have one, and 2) I like to think I’m analyzing Scottish culture when watching.
Time will tell, but I don’t think the fancy new box will change my viewing habits too much, just broaden my options the handful of times I do want to watch. Last I heard, the average American watches 3.5 hours of TV a day. At home, I’m more like 3.5 a month and here, less than 3.5 a week. Still, the question arises: how much is too much?
How does this sound as a general rule: time spent watching TV should be less than time spent reading.
Connect Online
