english paper

Running Head: Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 1 Personal Computing Device Obstacles and the Net Generation: The Economic, Physiological, Psychological, and Social Ramifications Ima Essex Inquiry Based Research Essay College Writing 2 Kent State University June 14, 201 6 Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 2 Outline Hypot hesis : We seek to clarify the common obstacles personal computing devices — including smart phones — and the Internet have on the economic, physiological, psychological, and social development during extended adolescence , ages 8 -18, in or der to keep perspective on (and begin to intelligently deal with) issues the Net Generation faces. I. Internet, Mobile Devices, & the Net Generation Background & History A. History of the Internet B. The Net Generation’s adoption of personal c omputing II. Personal Computing Adolescent Negatives A. Commercial exploitation B. Physical i nactivity C. Escapism and v iolence D. Anti -social b ehavior III. Personal Computing Positives A. Resourceful and knowledgeable adolescent shoppers B. Physical preparation for future employment C. Healthy release of negative emotions D. Social networking expertise and support IV. Results & Discussion A. Anti -social dangers do not outweigh job skills B. Parents and sites must help; negatives are in the real world, not just online. Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 3 Personal Computing Device Obstacles and the Net Generation: The Economic, Physiological, Psychological, and Social Ramifications 1 Introduction Computer technology influences our material lives and social relatio nships . Figure 2 in Appendix 1 shows that the Pew Internet Project found that 93% of US adolescents used the Internet in 2010, 12% more than adults 30 -49 and 23% more than adults 50 -64 the same year . Hence, c omputers and mobile devices, such as smart phone s, are used by teens to connect in more ways than adults do . One reason for this is that w e can be in constant connection with others, synchronously (through texts and calls) and asynchronously (email and posts), at a relatively inexpensive cost. Their use increases exponentially, and new media is constantly being added. It is impossible to fathom the ramifications use of this technology brings, especially on the Net Generation, which has grown up connected.

Everything from education and commerce to politic s to dating and correspondence is touched by growth in this technology. Society is just beginning to come to terms with the realization that it is approach a precipice. The Net Generation learns, shares, buys, plays, and interacts in ways that are non -trad itional and that threaten the norms of previous generations. Hence, it becomes necessary to evaluate these new approaches to both learn from and question that we might weigh future decisions that will have to be made , forgive the hyperbole, about everythin g. We need to know if the Net Generation is on track or off, and how society can best be shaped to facilitate their enrichment and growth. Below, we will seek to clarify the common obstacles personal computing devices — including smart 1 Note: This paper does not follow all the directions of our paper. It does include all major parts. Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 4 phones — and the Interne t have on the economic, physiological, psychological, and social development during extended adolescence , ages 8 -18, in order to keep perspective on (and begin to intelligently deal with) issues the Net Generation faces. Internet , Mobile Devices, & the Ne t Generation Background The Internet was first conceived to facilitate communication. Computer Scientist J.C.R. Licklider sketched out ideas for what he called an “Intergalactic Computer Network” in 1962 (as cited in “Peer -to -Peer,” 2010 , para. 3 ). His i deas were so far sighted that the Internet as we know it utilizes nearly all of them (“Key Events ,” 2007 , para. 27 ). By the late 1950’s, air defense radar systems were first networked together by the US government’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) . The US military wanted a similar way to connect different parts of their operations across the country in the event of war , so the Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO) was formed by the ARPA to figure out how to achieve this (“Key Events ,” 2007 , para. 5 ). They hired Licklider to head the agency (“Peer -to -Peer ,” 2010 , para. 14 ). A team was formed and the project was officially underway in 1968; b y October 29, 1969, a two -node link was established between research institutes at UCLA and Stanfo rd universities (“”Update,” 20 06, para. 5 ). Later UCSB and the University of Utah were added as nodes on the network. By November 21, 1969, a permanent link was established (“Key Events ,” 2007 , para. 17 -18 ). Sometimes termed “universal networking,” Lickli der’s goal was to allow for general communication between users, especially researchers (“Peer -to -Peer ,” 2010 , para. 1 ). That is one reason why university researchers widely promoted such a network. It had the potential to allow them Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 5 to quickly share infor mation and work on projects togeth er despite being long distances apart (Kaitel , 2009 , para. 22 ). ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990, but it had begun to be phased out as early as 1983 as other networks were added to it to form what we now call the Interne t. Tim Berners -Lee, a British scientist, invented the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1989, which opened the Internet up to non -technical users . Currently, it is estimated that one -third of the world’s population — 2.1 billion — have used the Internet (Kaitel , 2009 , p ara. 6 ). Hence, a lot of communication has been facilitated. The role of the Internet as a communication tool has increase d with the number of its users, who started out using it for simple bulletin boards, chat rooms, and email to communicate through , most of which transpired via a DOS prompt . Now, we can carry the Internet around on our mobile phones and access it via gaming . Expanded adolescents are high volume users of personal computing devices. In 2011, 51% of teens 12+ years old in the US used Fac ebook , 70% used broadband Internet, and 84% used cell phones ( Kaitel , 2009 , para. 50 ). 83% of teens in the US use te xt messaging, 54% text daily, and 54% ( aged 13 -17) spend 30 or more hours “connected” to media devices per week (Joseph , 2010 , para. 3). Tee ns, as a rule , send/receive an average of 5 times more text messages per day than adults do (“Update ,” 2006 , para. 19 -20 ). Expanded adolescents (those aged 8-18 ) average 1 hour and 2 9 minutes on a computer daily; k ids 11 -14 and 15 -18 on average text 1 hour 13 minutes and 1 hour 51 minutes respectively (Joseph , 2012 , para. 6 ). Adolescents of the Net Generation , then, are out -pacing adults in cell phone use, and a more than healthy number of them frequently use the Internet. Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 6 The Negatives of Personal Computing Devices Commercial exploitation has been one obvious result of adolescent use of personal commuting technology. A critical examination of the buddy and friends list s, especially of children , illustrate the situation . The article “Peer -to -Peer a nd Society ” (2010) reveals how children on the Internet frequently include media personalities in their profiles and often make allusions to the characters in contexts that have nothing to do with the movies, games, or cartoons the characters appear in. A “significant” number of children treat purely commercial characters — like real people as cited in “Peer -to -Peer ,” 2010 , para. 17 -23 ). Locus Group researcher John Pierce, during a 2009 interview, commented, “Characters like Hello Kitty, the Little Mermaid, a nd other licensed commercial characters are exploiting our children. “Child Economics and the Internet ” tells us that t hese characters are placed on junk food products, clothing, and television commercials to exploit children who are not yet of an age to b e sufficiently media literate” ( as cited in Cater , 2008 , para. 12 ). In other words, these children are old enough to want to buy but too young to understand how they are being manipulated. What we are seeing , then, is that younger and younger children are susceptible to advertising using these media characters . When questioned, it is clear that many of their commercial selection s are made solely on the characters that the goods have printed on them (Carter , 2008 , para. 20 ). Ben Johanson, quoted in “Peer -to -Peer and Society ,” has tracked this commercial bias through a child’s early teens . Children assume this habit early, and they take awhile to grow out of it (as cited in “Peer -to -Peer ,” 2010 , Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 7 para. 25 ). As we are currently in the throes of the first generation to be connected from birth, long -term study data cannot be gathered yet. There is no way determine the extent of the influence this style over substance commercialism will have on ch ildren as they grow into adults . It is just too early to know. Technology strikes at the physical development of children as well as at their economics . Per day, adolescents text an average of an hour and a half, use the I nternet for at least one hour, and watch TV for 3.25 hours (“Update ,” 2006 , para. 7 ). Adolescents, then, are spending a lot of time immobile. Add to this time an average of 8 hours of sleep and at least 6 hours sitting in school, and that gives adolescents a total of 17 out of 24 hours per day in a rel atively stationary position. It is no wonder childhood obesity is at an all -time high (Joseph , 2010 , para. 5 ). Many online activities that technology allows children to undertake can be exhausting. They require periods of intense concentration: chatting wi th multiple friends (online or via phone) for extended periods , intricate Massive Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG) activities (needing rapid hand -eye coordination and strategy), the generation of and responding to emotionally rich Facebook posts, etc. can be a way to build social relationship, but they, despite being sedentary activities, are drains upon one’s strength and energy. Hence, after sitting stationary for hours on end , adolescents will be tired, paradoxically, from not moving (Joseph , 2010 , para. 11 ). Still, after resting, teens are drawn back to the Internet because it is a sensory rush, an antidote to the white noise of life. This has led psychologist Edna Means of the Streetman Trust to coin the term “I -Hash” to represent the sensory rush then l anguidness syndrome the Internet produces in adolescents ( as cited in Joseph , 2012 , para. 12). Though Means’s position is extreme, Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 8 between texting and gaming and surfing and posting, adolescents can easily lose themselves in the technology and waste their time. Many are worried about the psychological effects o n adolescents of the Internet . Is cyberspace pure fantasy/escapism or a network of soon -to -be violent offenders? How many hours a day of violent gaming does it take to produce a teen with a criminal mind? Think of the 2009 case in Tepid, New Mexico, in which a 12 year -old -boy and his friend, much in the manner of Grand Theft Auto, stol e a car and ran over a police office who surprised and tried to apprehend them while they were stopped at a red light (McMahon , 2010 , para. 4 -5). Then, there was the 2010 case of a 14 -year -old in San Francisco who, after playing World of Warcraft, attempted to levitate off the roof of his apartment building in imitation of his avatar from the game, only to fall 15 stories to his death (Kaitel , 2009 , para. 11 ). Surely not every adolescent participates in violent gaming, but research shows that those who do (about 54% percent of US teens online) game for 3 -5 hour s on average per weekday (Rhinemann & Hendricks, 2005 , para. 3 0). On the weekends, many of these teens participate in marathon gaming sessions , some upwards of 10 -12 hours per day ( “Key Events ,” 2007 , para. 14 ). Hence, this begs the question if it is possible to hack, stab, shoot, and/or crash into thing, virtually a live or inanimate, without carrying an inclination for those actions back into the real world ( Joseph, 2010 , para. 2 )? Edith Means would ans wer this with a resounding “No” (as cited in Joseph , 2012 , para. 2 -3). Her 2007 study found that though playing video games has not been shown to indisputably cause real -world violence, it has been found that over 89% of violent youth offenders regularly played violent video games per day or consistently watched 6-10 violent videos per week (as cited in Joseph , 2010 , para. 3 ). What is more, these teens exhibited video game withdrawal symptoms Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 9 during their first month of incarceration . Certainly this is not a problem that affects every teen, but it certainly does influence those caught up in the video ga me culture, which is a significant number of the Net Generation . 34% of teens aged 12 -18 self -identify as regular players of violent video games (as cite d in Joseph , 2010 , para. 7 ). In the survey, “regular” was characterized as 4 or more times per week, s pending at least 1.5 hours per session engaged in viol ent gaming activity, such as fighting (whether physically or via the use of magic spells against an opponent), crashing or breaking into or otherwise striking a cyber opponent or an object above and bey ond a combat situation. Violence was also defined as stealing from a human, monster, alien, or animal (as cited in Joseph , 2010 , para. 9 ). Most games, as can be implied, contain at least one form of violence. Finally, we have the social issues that techno logy brings i nto adolescent lives. This paragraph will focus on the interpersonal relationship issues wherein it has been found that excessive use of technology inhibits real -life, interpersonal relationships. Online relationship skills, “Peer -to -Peer and Society” makes clear , are very different from those skills needed in daily life . Cyberspace allows teens (and adults as well) to assume false personas. These personas vary in type and consistency. Some are elitist, some are mean, some are authoritarian, some are virtual snipers (targeting hapless others), and some are criminal. Rarely, however, do these personas translate into real -life interactions because the distance and anonymity of the Internet give s some teens license to act without repercussion. On e former e -bully speaking in the article “It’s Not Your Father’s Internet,” spoke of his shenanigans. He said, “Back then when I was bored, I would go to sites like Youtube and flame [post nasty comments to get others angry]. Most of the time, I didn’t eve n know what I was commenting on. I would just pick something that looked stupid and Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 10 tell them it was stupid, usually commenting about their race or sex in the process” (Kaitel , 2009 , para. 22 ). Joseph (2012 ) terms these flaming posts “e -graffiti” and hate speech with one major difference (para. 14) . Flamers on the Internet do it without direction and sometimes without intention since they do not really know who they are intimidating, other than an image on a video. Hate speech in the form of graffiti in rea l-life, Joseph tells us, typically has an agenda because it is tied to “real” people. Internet hate speech often does not have a real -life target beyond an image on the screen which usually does not change once it is posted. Because teens are predominantly relating to others from a distance and sometimes under a pseudonym , these teens are immature in their development of interpersonal relationships. They typically have underdeveloped interpersonal skills (“Key Events ,” 2007 , para. 5 ). Characteristically, th ey lack the compromise skills needed to negotiate with strangers and skills to operate in a social hierarchy in which they most follow directions from authority figures because , on the Internet, they can operate as lone wolves (McMahon , 2010 , para. 8 ). And when they do cooperate, it typically is in the act of committing gaming violence in which they team up like a pack of dogs to kill a fantasy opponent. Hence, technology impairs child social skills as well as their intellectual discernment and physical and mental health. All these are scary propositions. Some Benefits of Personal Computing Devices The Internet is an economic hub , and like everyone else, adolescents have to learn how to make prudent economic decisions when shopping there . As a marketplac e, the Internet offers much more than what any single brick and mortar store can . Because of this, Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 11 the Internet simplifies comparison -shopping and offers buyer reviews about products and services available there . June Williams from Consumer Today has studied teen shopping behavior on the Internet. It seems that not only do teens comparison shop, but they also tend to do it mor e effectively than older users because, growing up around technology, they are adept at navigating the system (as cited in Cater , 2008 , para. 25 ). Where some older e- shoppers do not always know (or trust) the shopping resources available to them, younger users do (“Update ,” 2006 , para. 4 ). So though younger users may have a lower economic literary , research has shown that they more then make up for that deficit by knowing how to work the system while older users, for example, still are worried about inputting their credit card information (Cater , 2008 , para. 8 ). Adolescents literally surf circles around older netizens. Secondl y, there is not doubt that adolescents have been livin g more and more immobile lives; s ome argue , however, that kids are more than making up for the lack of physical activity by the benefits that technology use brings them. Higher order skills like the qui ck analysis and application of knowledge, the synthesis of facts, and certain psychomotor skills (which often come from gaming) are important benefits the Internet and mobile communication devices bring adolescents (Kaitel , 2009 , para. 3 ). “Peer -to -Peer an d Society” also suggests that though youth is more sedentary than in past generations, this sedentary lifestyle is functional, to some degree, because it psychologically prepares adolescents to work in technology fields, many of which necessitate workers s itting at desks for long periods at a time (Cater , 2008 , para. 16 -17 ). If we are being truthful and have an eye toward the past, we can see that many jobs in the past have been sedentary or at least stationary in nature , from production lines to office wor k. Human history has been full Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 12 of jobs requiring repetitive motion and minimal physical activity. Maybe the Net Generation of youth will be better prepared to undertake sedentary jobs because they have grown up with a sedentary life (“Update ,” 2006 , para. 34 ). If so, immobility is serving them well. Next, t ry as some might, no one can show a clear correlation between violent video games/videos and the commission of violence in real life. In fact, violent games and videos may ac tually be a benefit to society because they serve as a “relief valve of pentup aggression” ( Rhinemann & Hendricks , 2005 , para. 7 ). In other words, they are a healthy way to exercise that part of human nature. All the violence, then, takes place in a fantasy (cyber) world, and yo uth get it out of their system. They do not have to repress their instincts, creating the fear it will eventually express itself in real violence against other human beings who can be hurt in way s cyber -opponents cannot ( Rhinemann & Hendricks , 2005 , para. 11 ). Human s, like any animal on the planet, is built with a fight or flight mechanism (McMahon , 2010 , para. 2 ). When pushed, we either stand our ground and fight or run for safety. Video games allows kids to exercise those flight or fight demons without hu rting themselves or others in the process. “Peer -to -Peer and Society” (2010 ), for one, thinks it is an effective way for adolescents to get the fight or flight choices under control and for adolescent to learn their limits and values in a safe way (para. 4 4) . That way, when it comes time to fight or run in real life, adolescents will have experience via gaming to make those choices based on knowledge of themselves, not just raw instinct. Finally, adolescents use technology to com municate; it is illogical to suggest that technology inhibits their socialization. That is the primary purpose adolescents have adopted technology for (Joseph, 2010 , para. 7 ). They text, call, instant message, and email Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 13 each other. (See Figure 1 in Appendix 1 for a breakdown of how t eens communicated during the 2007 -2008 school year.) The y work in groups to achieve tasks in MMOG’s . They photograph and film their life and their thoughts and post them on youtube and similar sites. They do all these things much more than adults, and adolescents are adopting them more quickly than adults (“Update ,” 2006 , para. 5 ). T echnology , then, is a bridge to communication and socialization for teens, not a precipice . The negative technological interactions that people point to are exa mples of bullying. Though 25% of eighth graders in 2004 reported getting bullied via email or instant message ( See Figure 3 in Appendix 1), bullying takes takes place online and off. Technology has not really made bu llying worse, it just opens up bullying to what might be called non -traditional bullies (McMahon , 2010 , para. 10 ). These non -traditional bullies do not need mobs to play to/back their aggression, and they do not have to be physically strong. These new bull ies just need to have a kind of technological strength, to be technologically adept to understand the relationship dynamics of the medium they exploit (McMahon , 2010 , para. 15 ). But opposite of what many believe, the nature of the Internet allows others to stand up for the victim s of bullies (Kaitel , 2009 , para. 1 ). These champions can do so a s anonymously as the bully on the attack (McMahon , 2010 , para. 50 ). What this does is helps to encourage support of the victims in ways that real -time bullying might n ot allow for because , in the real world, someone who stands up against a bully risks physical reprisal , which cannot happen in cyberspace. In most cases the worst that can occur is a vitriolic response post, which sites like Youtube , have discovered ways t o block if enough users “Vote Down” them ( “Key Events ,” 20 07, para. 33 ). Hence, technology , again, offsets as many issues as some would accuse it of cr eating and adolescents continue to benefit from it despite false criticisms. Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 14 Results Despite our original hypothesis that technology harms adolescents economically, physiologically, psychologically, and socially, it seems that many of our suppositions were only partially accurate . To be sure, there are potential issues when mix ing technolo gy and adolescents. Kaitel (2009) tells us that a dolescents, in general, have a low level of economic literacy (para. 4) . They are more impressionable and may make purchases on whims, rather than reason. Contemporary technological devices allow teens to li ve sedentary lives. Technology can also allow teens to be express anti -social behavior, such as bullying and flaming. For every negative aspect, there are one or more positive aspects of technology. Adolescents, being raised on the Internet, know how to sh op there and build relationships there (Joseph, 2012 , para. 7 ). The Internet allows for teen expression. Though bullies are ever -present, the distance and anonymity that allows bullies to function online can also empower adolescents to express themselves. Instead of getting physically attacked as might happen in real life, teens can post in relative safety and be free from physical harm (Cater, 2008 , para. 22 ). This does not address every bully -related issue, but it is a benefit of the Internet. Maybe as im portant as all of the above, using technology and mobile devices gives adolescents skills and facility that they can use in future careers. Most of the drawbacks of technology are things that take place as much offline as on. Commercialism, bullying, lazi ness, violence, and lack of socialization all would happen even if cell phones and computers did not exist. The most technology does is give inroads for a Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 15 few extra bullies who, for whatever reason, can only torment others online, not off (Joseph, 2010 , pa ra. 5 ). It can be said then that much of the negative impact of technology can be mitigated if parents and edu cators take the time to teach adolesc ents a few simple rules about money (“Peer -to -Peer,” 2010 , para. 21 ). Also, adolescents should be spending th eir own money online, not their parents. That way, if the transaction or the product is bad, they feel it directly . Finally, online sites can be programmed to help reduce bullying and negative posts by tools like flagging, “like,” and “vote down” options w hich allow sincere users of sites to support each other in the face of a bully’s attack (McMahon, 2010 , para. 17 ). Hence, victims can fight back. Conclusion In the end, we cannot be quick to defame technology. We just have to be smart in using it and in helping our adolescents to use it. It is not possible to make a blanket statement about technology. The best thing we can do, for the sake of our adolescents, is to see technology as a complex system which has a lot to offer. Then, we must educate ourselv es about it so that, in turn, we can educate our kids. Kids are our future. As humans, we cannot live without the Internet. If we want a better future, we need to educate our kids to take full advantage of their future and learn how to avoid the pitfalls o f it. Technology can help or hurt our culture, so help our kids help themselves. Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 16 References 2 Cater , P. J. (2008). The economics of t eens on the I nternet. New Journal , 8(4), 33 -87 . Retrieved from http://www. sirs.r esearcher /teenneteconomics/ webweb.html . Joseph, M . (2010). Hang up and starting doing pushups. Mobile Journal , 25 (5), 334. Retrieved from http:www.ebscohost .com/mj/articles/445.html. Joseph, M. (2012). Ge tting Smart on the Smart Phone. Our Children Today , 2(20) , 12 -22. Retrieved from http://jameswright.com/smart time.htmlarticles/ . Kaitel , P. (2009). It’s not y our father’s i ntern et. Tech Digest , 40 (3), 23 -30. Retrieved from http://techdigest.com/manual.html. Key events in the history of the internet . (2007). Tech Digest , 35 .2. Retrieved from http://techdigest.com/historyinternet.html. McMahon, S. (2010, June 6). Bullying: Who, Why, and Where? New York Times , pp. E7. Peer -to-peer and society. ( 2010) . Computers and Contemporary Thought , 4(29), 13. Rhinemann , C. & Hendricks , M . (2005). The limited r elevance of I-distraction . Journal of Mobile Computing 3.2 . Retrieved from http://www.someaddress.com/fullurl.html. Update: teens o nline . (2006). Tech Digest 30 , pp. 33, N8. Retrieved from Retrieved from http://www.someaddress.com/fullurl.html . 2 This paper uses a different number of sources than is required for our paper. Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 17 Appendix Charts & Tables About Extended Adolescence and the Internet Figure 1: US Teen’s Daily Social Activities Average (2007 -2008 School Year ). Source: Lenhart (2009). Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/20 09/02/28 /teens -social - media -technology -2009 /. Figure 2 : Pew's Percent of Te ens by Age Who Use the Internet Daily. Source: Kimball (2010). Retrieved from http://www.blognow.com/teensonnet/ . Personal Computing Device Obstacles Essex 18 Figure 3 : Adolescents by Grade Le vel Receiving Negative Messages. Source: i -SAFE Survey (2004). Retrieved from http://www.isafe.org/outreach/media/ media_cyber bullying .