A Title Similar to "Menu-Driven Identity Workshop Response"

1. Which categories are available for users to choose from when signing up for Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail or in order to use the Second Life gameworld? What presumptions do these categories make about users, and what does the absence of certain categories of identity say?

Yahoo! Mail, Hotmail and Second Life all ask for "First name" and "Last name"; however, it appears that Y! and Hotmail assume the provided names are real/factual, while Second Life encourages the provision of a 'fictional' name as a starting point for the construction of a new, online identity. Second Life, unlike Y! and Hotmail, provide a list of surnames from which the user can select. This list is arguably extensive, but still limiting as there is no option for the user to choose a surname outside of that list. In the list there is only one ‘U’ surname, no ‘X’ or ‘Y’ surnames, and many of the surnames have predominantly Western connotations (although that perception may just be a result of the Western interpretation I happen to have). And so begins the construction of the user’s MDI (menu-driven identity).

The user’s choice of their Security Questions (used in cases such as the user’s forgetting of their password) is bound to the limits of the menus provided by Hotmail, Y! and Second Life. The menus, when considered holistically as entities, are remarkably suggestive of Western ideals, such as marriage, parenthood, institutional education, and having a (favourite) pet. Second Life provides questions such as “What is your mother’s maiden name?” which doesn’t appear to take into account individuals with more than one mother, such as people who have been adopted, people whose parents are a lesbian couple, or Australian Aboriginal people who regard their biological mother and her sisters in the same manner as each other. Another question/option is “What street did you grow up on?” which implies the ideal of having one childhood home, and appears to exclude those who changed their residential location a lot, such as people whose parents’ occupations required them to move, or whose parents changed life partners, or individuals who were members of a gypsy band.

Y! appears not to ask the user for their sex/gender, while Hotmail and Second Life both ask for “gender” (as opposed to “sex”). I find this interesting as it allows for transsexuals and hermaphrodites to consolidate their gender identities, although by the same token it may present some confronting and difficult issues. (And so continues the construction of the user’s MDI.)

2. What sorts of 'identities' are visible in the profiles on Lavalife? How are they displayed? What presumptions does this display make about both the people reading these profiles and those users who made them?

The identities included in the Lavalife user profiles include age (18-99 years), gender (male/female), hetero- and homo- sexuality, education level, annual income, country, and personal interests. (I couldn’t find a way to change the search from English speakers.)

Profiles open with answers to “asl (age, sex, location)?”. This suggests that the Lavalife creators consider these factors as most important to the reader. The prioritisation of what is included in the profile excerpts in the search results pages over other details specified in the extended profile pages is interesting, too; for example, the prioritisation of annual income over personal interests. It seems that capitalism increasingly permeates our daily lives, as Lavalife creators feed us the financial value of the user rather than the user's own personal values (which, personally, I consider more important than their income). The lack of representation of other-than-USA currencies is also reflective of the values implicitly endorsed/perpetuated by Lavalife.

In Australian user profiles I noticed the option “college” had been selected – in my experience, Australians rarely refer to college. This is an example of the limitations and implications of menu-driven identities: there is no room to accurately and wholly express our true identities (for example, "university education"), and so users have to make approximations and compromises in many areas.

Maybe these days in the chat forums, instead of asking "asl?" we should ask our fellow chatters “mdi?”.

Menu-Driven Identities Workshop

I'm going to attempt a discussion of questions 2 and 3 since they are pretty much similarly connected. Hope i don't get lost in my thoughts :)

2. What sort of 'identities' are visible in the profiles on Lavalife? How are they displayed? What presumptions does this display make about both the people reading these profiles and those users who made them?
3. How much of the "identity" that we can see online for the users on Lavalife is restricted by the overall design of the website? What changes would you suggest in order to "improve" the sorts of identity Lavalife users can construct?

The basic identity markers of a person are easily visible, by that i mean the usual things that someone would want to know when meeting someone new for whatever purpose they choose : dating, relationships or intimate encounters. Everything is laid out nicely in a fixed format. It makes it easier to compare members (like shopping for products) {i know i'm so gonna get it for saying that} but on the other hand it disallows us to gain an insight of the organisation or thought processes of the member if they were to describe themselves in full without a preset 'template' to follow - It seems that the identities of the members follow a resonably comprehensive fixed template. They all start the same way and follow the same order; age, sex, location (ASL), ethnicity, star sign, religion. Then comes the height, weight and social habits, 'excess baggages' in terms of children (when one is looking for someone to have a relationship with), education level and financial status. Lavalife assumes that that is all a user would be interested in and the member is willing to tell. When i click on the nickname for more info, the standard get-to-know-him/her categories like interests and hobbies come up in addition to a little blurb that the member has written. Because of the overall design of the website, there's no room for other unique identity markers (eg. colour blindedness, piercings, disabilities, a psychotic ex...) unless the member decides to put it in his blurb. Which i doubt he/she would, which leads the user to assume that the member is akin to the majority of the population, whatever that is ;).

Anyway, these blurbs mostly contain information that we would have found out already, but in one of these blurbs, i saw something interesting :

" They say my this 'personal message of "tell us about yourself
in your own words" is too short, because i wrote this only: Nothing
to say accept VERY VERY SMART and CUTE! haha.."

For those not accustomed to Singlish (Singaporean english) , the member basically means that lavalife has told him that what he has written in the "tell us about yourself in your own words" box is too short, because he wrote like 10 words only.

So, it seems that lavalife is standardising the game and presumes that browsers like me are all interested in the same things. If i wanted to use one word to describe myself i should be able to. It's who i am - quiet? Lavalife presumes that the majority is interested in the same things. I guess it's the same theory for all other websites. They tend to cater to the majority of the web surfers who belong to the 'default' race.

I feel that lavalife is one of the better online dating and relationship webbies around. It has an instant messaging thingy AND video greetings (though u have to pay to use them). There should possibly also be a freeform box where the member can come up with some random thought, picture or drawing/s that he/she thinks may reflect his person. Given a fair chance that any member can masquarade his face and identity off in the wired world it's the risk that we all take, and i see no way that lavalife can reduce that risk. As quoted in their Privacy and Use of Information statement : "We cannot guarantee, and assume no responsibility for verifying, the accuracy of the information provided by other users of the Service."

Of possible interest...

Hey guys, hope you're all well. I found this article that I thought might be worth sharing.

Not sure if this will actually work... If it doesn't, here are the particulars so you can look it up and access it through the library catalogue:

Article title: Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample
Authors: A. Durndell & Z. Haag
Journal title: Computers in Human Behavior (Volume 18, Number 5, Pages 521-535)

Let me know what you think!

Have a good one.

Changes to this tutorial blog

Hi Everyone,

New Link
A couple of changes to your tutorial blog. Firstly, you will notice I've added a link to the main Self.Net blog; this contains occassional posts from myself or Karen focusing on items which may be of interest for all students. Also, a number of curious people have found my own personal blog. Since some of you have found it, I may as put a link here, so if anyone else wants a read, you're most welcome (but do keep in mind, this is my personal blog, so isn't always 100% academically orientated!).

Blog Navigation Bar
I'm sure you've all noticed this new Navigation Bar at the top of the blog:

This adds some functions which might make using the tutorial blog easier:

• The orange Blogger button will take you directly to Blogger.com.

• Entering a search into the empty form box (the white box) and hitting search will search this blog (or whatever blog you are viewing). This should make finding earlier material much easier (only 15 posts remain on the front page, the rest go into the archive, accessible via the links on the side).

• Finally, the BlogThis! button will automatically open a window to let you write a blog post.

FollowUp Comments for those Introducing Readings
Just a quick note: most of you who have already introduced readings this week in tutorials have gone back and published your reflection upon the tutorial after it finished. Those who haven't (and those presenting in the coming weeks) please remember that part of your tutorial presentation is to go back to the post you made before the tute and reflect on how well your presentation went (how well the ideas were received; what sort of conversation happened; any ways your ideas about the reading might have changed/expaned). Ideally, this should be done as soon as possible after your tutorial presentation (but really should be before the next meeting of your tutorial). Others are reminded, that they are always welcome to comment on any posts in their tutorial blog and are also welcome to post relevant links/ideas whenever you find things! (oh, and for those of you who've never read other people's comments, give it a go; there are some really interesting dialogues taking place in the comments!).

A reminder:
Before clicking the 'Publish Post' button, if you place the cursor inside the window where you have written your post press either Ctrl+A to select all and then Ctrl+C (on a PC) or Apple+A to select all and then Apple+C (on a Mac), this will place the text you have written in the memory of the computer (this is referred to as placing text on the clipboard). If something goes wrong during the attempt to publish, all you need to do to make the post a second time is place the cursor in the post window and press either Ctrl+V (PC) or Apple+V (Mac) to paste the text from the clipboard into that text box. (Occassionally blogger does 'hang' [which means not finishing the posting function], so it is useful to make this quick backup in order to avoid typing out the entry a second time!)

Genetic manipulation, class, race, and gender, as explored in Gattaca

Does genetic screening and manipulation as presented in Gattaca evoke a new eugenics? Does this scenario seem credible given current scientific trends?
The genetic screening and manipulation presented in Gattaca is a speculative enactment of “made to order” offspring. Genetic-oriented technology is presented as radically accelerating Darwinian evolutionary/eugenic processes; a more thorough genetic filter providing choice and control. Easier accessibility/attainability of genetic ideal(s) equates to the redundancy of the genetic compromise we presently face; hence, the evocation of a new eugenics.

Given current scientific trends, the conceptual potentialities regarding genetic manipulation presented in Gattaca are credible within the film’s own context; however, in the context of the real world, I feel ethical issues substantially decrease the likelihood of custom made offspring becoming a mainstream affair.

How are issues of class, race and gender explored in Gattaca?
Favourability informed by the potential for social mobility is interestingly and symbolically represented by the name “Anton”. It would appear that the boys’ father, Antonio, favours upward social mobility, and so the superior, “valid”, worthy son is given the father’s name as his first name. Vincent has his father’s name as his middle name, which is arguably inferior to a first name, because Vincent is an “in-valid” and is less likely to excel. Antonio’s want for his children to excel, and the investment of his identity in the son more likely to do so (i.e. Anton) in order that his (Antonio’s) identity is associated with success symbolises a favouring and advocation of upward social mobility.

Women and non-Caucasians are represented by characters in positions with some power; i.e. the mother and the doctor. The validation of this authority appears to depend primarily on whiteness and secondarily on masculinity. This is conveyed in the mother’s authority overriding the doctor’s (as exemplified in the conversation regarding the extent of Anton’s genetic manipulation), and Antonio’s authority overriding the mother’s (as exemplified in the naming of Vincent, and later in comparisons of the mother’s and father’s dialogue at the dinner table).

The film’s scant representation of women and non-Caucasians, coupled with Anton’s genetic superiority and Vincent’s will (and success) to excel, appears to suggest that the domination in Western society of the white male will continue into the future. It could therefore be argued that the film advocates a functionalist perspective of humanity.

gattaca

I think genetic screening and manipulation in Gattaca does evoke a new level of eugenics that may potentially create more bad than good for mankind. The doctor in the film assures both parents that there are plenty of other imperfections that have not been 'fixed' in the child, which makes me question which traits are deemed unwanted. Eye colour, distance of positioning between two eyes, chance of liver failure.. sure,maybe nobody wants to have a liver that fails on them. But the possibilities are then endless. If the doctor has access to all the codes for the million traits or characteristics that a human body possesses, from the way he/she carries herself to the length of his/her legs, wouldn't that create insatiable greed for a 120% perfect child along the way? One that has a lifespan of a hundred years? Wouldn't all the superhumans then overpopulate the earth with their invincible immune systems?

Tinkering with nature is all good, but then what happens when nature cant work it's magic anymore? The city of zion like in The Matrix? Would we want to take on the superior qualities of the animal world or incorporate ourselves with technology? Slowly but surely, we see on the News breakthrough discoveries on medical research. Body parts can be harvested from pigs and the exact genes responsible for something like schizophrenia have been found. Are we likely in the future, to host parts from animals that allow us to see in the dark and possibly witness the extinction of schizophrenia? I feel we are definitely taking small steps towards a future not quite as extreme as the likes in Gattaca, but definitely something along those lines.

This unit rocks.

Hey everyone.

I commented on Kel's post a few minutes ago, and in my comment I gave an url. After I clicked "post comment" I realised I'd forgotten to make the address a hyperlink for user-friendliness' sake. Clicked "delete" with the intention of posting the entire comment again, with improvements. I was then redirected to a page that told me "an error was found" and I had to sign in again. Under the impression that my comment hadn't been deleted, I tried and went through this same process twice more. The deletion process took a while, and after seeing my flawed comment was still there after several refreshes, I posted a second comment that continued from the first, but as it turned out the first one had been deleted after all. Nevermind. I wish there was an "edit comment" function. Moral of the story: "Patience is a virtue."

As for Anli's point re: online and offline names, I have a friend who I met through IRC, who even in the offline environment insists on calling me by my chat alias, Incomplet_. Of course, he irritatingly pronounces it as "incomplet underscore". Online, people often call me by my offline names, i.e. Lyrian, and the nickname Lil. I think the cross-contextual interchangeability of these names can be attributed to the nickname-like nature/status of online aliases - after all, the command used to change one's alias on IRC is "/nick" (followed by the chosen name).

Bah @ length of post. Can't half tell I'm a livejournaler, eh?

Favourite websites, you ask? Well, this one is a nice feel-good read for those with an individualist or humanist philosophy: http://www.randomterrain.com/quotes/nonconformity.html. And this one is useful for showing off my precious Muse tickets: http://www.cs.uwa.edu.au/~trana02/random/DSC02173.JPG. Jealous? Bahaha. Clicking around The Internet Movie Database can be interesting. If you want a laugh, try bash.org for size. Sometimes the humour is utterly moronic but overall it's an amusing corner of the web.

Is there an 'lj-cut' equivalent for blogs?

Take it easy.

first post

I think tama's not having a good morning.... =)

dawn