I was about to say it can't be any worse than teaching college freshman enrolled in a mandatory English composition class, but—man, I almost don't want to know. At least I can tell myself I'm dealing with them at the point where they've got the most room for improvement.
>In other words, boredom is the price one pays for having subjectivity; constant engagement entails some kind of post-subjective state in which one is constantly manipulated, and one’s personality is fully dictated by measurements of their responsiveness to content and the feedback loops built on those metrics.
Perhaps this is what Marshall McLuhan was scratching at when he spoke of the "tribal involvement" of electr[on]ic media—the loss of the individual self in the sensuous goading magic and introspection-halting immediateness of the mass media spectacle.
His assumption, I suppose, was that broadcast television would remain the norm: you and I and everyone would we know would be absorbed in the same play of sounds and images at the same time, experiencing them simultaneously in spite of being in different places. (Perhaps other people would be watching something else—but how many other channels could they watch? Two? Three?) Now that the content is customized to the individual based on behavioral feedback, the "tribal magic" metaphor frays at the seams.
Earlier today I was listening to an NPR show about the emotional lives and thought processes of crows, and a researcher who studied ravens said something that made my jaw drop:
>These kind of studies always depend on the goodwill of the ravens, because their participation is monitored—so you want them to like you, and you want them to be interested in the experimental setup and find it entertaining and rewarding in some way.
I was shocked because the professor unwittingly summarized the very ethos of the social media platform. Walter Benjamin said the identification of the film viewer with the camera put them in the posture of one conducting a test. With YouTube and TikTok the "experiment" is designed such that the viewer himself is the test subject.
The Guardian essay was ridiculous. MrBeast is lowest common denominator and any one of the millions of kids who wanted to be him coyld have been him. Its just luck of the draw. Once you are number 1 the morons watcg you cos your number 1. I also cant believe that neither article mentions Orwell and 'Feelies'. His audience are obviously idiots and I would certainly say that the guardian writer is one of them, with a pseudo intellectual veneer. He wrote about MrBeast positively because he ascertained MrBeast is popular and thus generate clicks for his 'work'
The Guardian essay was ridiculous. MrBeast is lowest common denominator and any one of the millions of kids who wanted to be him coyld have been him. Its just luck of the draw. Once you are number 1 the morons watcg you cos your number 1. I also cant believe that neither article mentions Orwell and 'Feelies'. His audience are obviously idiots and I would certainly say that the guardian writer is one of them, with a pseudo intellectual veneer. He wrote about MrBeast positively because he ascertained MrBeast is popular and thus generate clicks for his 'work'
This was excellent.
Imagine trying to teach upper level law school courses to students steeped in the Mr Beast genre
I was about to say it can't be any worse than teaching college freshman enrolled in a mandatory English composition class, but—man, I almost don't want to know. At least I can tell myself I'm dealing with them at the point where they've got the most room for improvement.
>In other words, boredom is the price one pays for having subjectivity; constant engagement entails some kind of post-subjective state in which one is constantly manipulated, and one’s personality is fully dictated by measurements of their responsiveness to content and the feedback loops built on those metrics.
Perhaps this is what Marshall McLuhan was scratching at when he spoke of the "tribal involvement" of electr[on]ic media—the loss of the individual self in the sensuous goading magic and introspection-halting immediateness of the mass media spectacle.
His assumption, I suppose, was that broadcast television would remain the norm: you and I and everyone would we know would be absorbed in the same play of sounds and images at the same time, experiencing them simultaneously in spite of being in different places. (Perhaps other people would be watching something else—but how many other channels could they watch? Two? Three?) Now that the content is customized to the individual based on behavioral feedback, the "tribal magic" metaphor frays at the seams.
Earlier today I was listening to an NPR show about the emotional lives and thought processes of crows, and a researcher who studied ravens said something that made my jaw drop:
>These kind of studies always depend on the goodwill of the ravens, because their participation is monitored—so you want them to like you, and you want them to be interested in the experimental setup and find it entertaining and rewarding in some way.
I was shocked because the professor unwittingly summarized the very ethos of the social media platform. Walter Benjamin said the identification of the film viewer with the camera put them in the posture of one conducting a test. With YouTube and TikTok the "experiment" is designed such that the viewer himself is the test subject.
Leaving a comment for the metrics.
The Guardian essay was ridiculous. MrBeast is lowest common denominator and any one of the millions of kids who wanted to be him coyld have been him. Its just luck of the draw. Once you are number 1 the morons watcg you cos your number 1. I also cant believe that neither article mentions Orwell and 'Feelies'. His audience are obviously idiots and I would certainly say that the guardian writer is one of them, with a pseudo intellectual veneer. He wrote about MrBeast positively because he ascertained MrBeast is popular and thus generate clicks for his 'work'
The Guardian essay was ridiculous. MrBeast is lowest common denominator and any one of the millions of kids who wanted to be him coyld have been him. Its just luck of the draw. Once you are number 1 the morons watcg you cos your number 1. I also cant believe that neither article mentions Orwell and 'Feelies'. His audience are obviously idiots and I would certainly say that the guardian writer is one of them, with a pseudo intellectual veneer. He wrote about MrBeast positively because he ascertained MrBeast is popular and thus generate clicks for his 'work'