It's been a while.

If there is anyone who has been following or even casually reading my blog, I greatly appreciate it. It has been quite a while since I made a post.

The reason why I have not posted was because I honestly did not have any ideas, and I lost some interest in continuing this endeavor.

However, I've grown some interest in this again, and I will start writing more entries. I will try my best to get at least 1 entry a week. I might post multiple entries a week (like I did before), but basically, whenever I have the time, or if I have an idea, I will try my best to get something out as soon as possible.

I won't guarantee anything, but I think it's about time that I start writing more entries to this blog.

If you have any requests for topics, please feel free to post it in the comments or to email it to me.

Thank you.

** I Won't Be Posting Anything New Here For A Little While **

The reason is because my computer has broken and I am currently in the process of trying to save up as much money as I can and then buy a new one.

In the mean time, I will brainstorm some new topics that I might want to discuss here and jot some notes down for myself.

Please continue to read the posts that I have made so far and comment.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
-- Charles I. Kim

Harry Potter

* I am in no way a big Harry Potter fan. I am a casual fan so I may get some technical aspects of the series incorrect.
* I do not own any part of the Harry Potter franchise. I do not own any part of the documentary being referenced here.
* Harry Potter and the documentary are just being referenced for discussion purposes only.

Do you enjoy Harry Potter? Do you believe that it is a harmless story of magic and wizardry?

Believe it or not, there are some who believe that Harry Potter is a detriment to society. Honestly, I don't believe that this is the case.

If anything Harry Potter is actually something positive for the youth of this generation as it gives something to related to other people, enjoy themselves, learn not to fear being able to express yourself, and gain an sense of appreciation through others.

I stumbled upon this documentary which is where this Harry Potter topic came from.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/62149/we-are-wizards

"It just kinda gave me a place to belong. It gave me a group of people I'm part of. I probably have more friends through Harry Potter than I've made anywhere else."

Much of this documentary is riddled with fandom brought to an extreme and where fans and corporate "owners" of the Harry Potter documentary battle it out.

In all honestly, I fail to see the significance of this controversy.

The fans of the franchise are expressing their enjoyment out of Harry Potter, yet the corporate owners of the IP (initially) go after them for many reasons only to eventually decide that maybe it's time to re-evaluate things.

In the beginning portions of this documentary, the woman claims that Harry Potter "...entices children to dabble into the ocult." and that it "...ultimately will destroy society."

How so? I understand where she is coming from in regards to the occult issue, but that's really taking it from a surface-only point of view. If one were to read the books or watch the movies, one would quickly realize that there are more themes and morals that are discussed in the movie. In a sense, the magic and wizardry are just the icing on a cup-cake (for lack of a better metaphor). The "core" cake portion of it (i.e. the themes and morals) are what is important.

However, I will acknowledge that this woman who made the comment may be getting at something that is possible. Many of Harry Potter fans are younger children. Children, especially at the younger age, tend to take things that they see, hear, and experience from a face-value perspective; that is there is little to no processing of underlying meanings.

Even still, I believe that as life progresses, and as long as the child has a relatively stable childhood and is able to progress into young adulthood without much turmoil, the child will develop into a mature individual who is able to differentiate between "good" and "bad" morals.

It's quite shocking how something that may appear to be "just a movie" or "just a book" to cause such a ruckus. But, in the society that we live today, imagination is nearly crossing the boundaries of what appears to be real.

Most are capable of being able to distinguish what is moral & amoral, and what is "real" and what is "imaginary".

But, we see here (with the documentary) that there is always room for discussions and interpretations of the ramifications of massively popular items in a culture; of which can be extremely impressionable on an individual.

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

Fads

You know what fads are. They're synonymous with popular trends; things that people, or rather groups of people, believe are some thing of worth that without, their social standings are somehow diminished.

What is it about our human need to feel like we belong to something, even if in the back of our minds we may (or may not) be aware and understand that this "thing" is going to be short-lived and another "thing" is going to be the thing to own, to do, to be like, and associate the self with.

From a business type of point of view, fads are an excellent way to sell products quickly to the masses. But that's not what we're here to discuss.

We're here to look at fads from a psychological point of view. These fads specifically are technology related (in some way, shape, or form even if not directly a tech item or good).

What tech related trends are the thing to be involved in lately?

World of WarCraft? Second Life?
FaceBook? MySpace? Twitter?
YouTube?
BlackBerry?

What are the things that you need to own or be a part of to be "cool"?

First, I would like to begin by emphasizing that none of this existed a few years ago. It's only recently that this technology boom really escalated to the point where these things are a necessity (seemingly) in our day to day lives.

Imagine what would happen if all of a sudden, none of these things existed tomorrow. People would probably freak out. It would be a mess.

Now, let's take a more purposeful insight into these fads and trends. Essentially, these are all OCTs (online communication tools). Why do we rely on them so much? Maybe it's because the real world seems a bit lacking or some is is of lesser importance in our everyday lives. But, none of us are willing to really admit that and these fads develop; in a sense to substitute and relieve ourselves of these feelings.

For all those who have a FaceBook account...Let's think about it. Why exactly did you join FaceBook? Personally, I created my FaceBook account before I went off to college in an attempt to have 1 way to communicate with people that I know of and went to school with. It was also a way for me to get into contact with people who I have not seen in quite some time.

To this day, I'm a bit surprised at how many "Friends" are listed under my FaceBook account. Are these really all my friends or are they more like acquaintances?

But there seems to be this sense of belonging as the number of "Friends" listed in my FaceBook account grows.

A pertinent article can be read at:

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/university/ut-s-psychology-department-studies-multiplayer-games-1.957105

It is a psychology study done on online multi-player games.

An interesting bit is a quote taken from the article that states...

"I think the main goal of the game is the socialization...That goal definitely applies to other people who play World of Warcraft."

On the outside, some may see this type of OCT as a game and only a game, as that is what World of WarCraft (and some others) are marketed as.

But what some fail to realize is the real life applications and values that can be derived from being involved with these OCTs.

Of course there is a potential for getting addicted as with any thing in life. Things happen and you get more involved in it and feel that you should spend more time with it.

Even then...I do feel that there is much value to be learned.

And with fads, there is also much value. We get a general overview of the things or subject matter that the individual has at least some interest in, and, the means by which the "fad" is done (be it in the form of a game, owning a certain item, being part of some group.

Clearly if there are so many fads and many members of such fad, we can't all be "wrong", now can we? As virtually all of us are or have followed a fad. To be labeled as "abnormally unique" would be something that would apply to everyone in a sense.

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

Piracy

Greetings. I know it has been quite some time, but I decided that it was about time that I posted something new here.

Anyway, let's back on the topic of discussion.

Piracy.

What do you feel about this issue of piracy? There are many different opinions about the matter.

Some believe that it is beneficial whereas others (majority of whom "own" the product) believe that it should be completely dealt away with.

From a business mindset, piracy is a bit of a nuisance in that potential profits are being lost. However, from another perspective, piracy can somewhat be viewed as a form of free advertising for the product.

In general, there is nothing really "lost" per say as it's not like (in most cases) the "pirate" is not directly profiting (as in monetary terms) off it the use/acquiring of the product itself.

In many cases, the "pirates" are obtaining such items for personal use. Others feel that maybe the product that they have interest in is a bit overpriced and maybe the means by which one were to obtain a "legitimate" copy of the product is time consuming as well relative to using whatever mediums are out there and "obtain" the products at no direct cost via the use of the Internet.

What we are facing in modern times with "piracy" should really be taken a bit more seriously but only after giving it more thought.

The authors of products (that are being pirated) often do not require as much monetary gains as many profit via other means.

Let's take an example.

Musicians (as music "piracy" is often the bigger issue). As many are aware, there are now services where you can download music at a small charge. This includes applications such as the iTunes. Though the prices are within affordable range, the price on each music, video, TV episode, etc are a bit pricey.

Yes you are receiving a "legitimate" digital copy of the product but it is understandable that many people would probably consider (at least for a brief moment) if there was some way to have such media file without paying any money?

This is not far fetched.

This inquiry we have is often without the intention of profiting monetarily. The intention is for personal entertainment.

That's the key here. INTENTION.

There are of course people who "pirate" and then amass a large library of such media files and sell them to people at a decent asking price.

Realistically, that scenario is really what should be confronted. The intention is to amass large quantities of media (various types), and sell such media to people for a monetary profit.

If the intention is just for personal entertainment, what harm is there? Not much really.

It would seem that this apparent issue with "piracy" is a bit vague on how the laws would deal with it. Not much thought has been put into it so a decision is hastily made; often in favor of the "author" of such product.

If the intention is to make money by "pirating" data, then that is understandable to bring about some kind of a punishment of some sort.

If the intention is for personal entertainment, there is no "pirate money" being made. The only profiting made here is strictly personal entrainment.

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

Reality of Contructed Characters - Part 2

Now we move on with part 2 of this topic.

Here, I would like to discuss this idea of a shroud of some sort that many perceive exists between the monitor of or computers and the self while interacting online.

This shroud that I am referring to is this feeling of anonymity that seems to just be there. From this, there are assumptions that we are more free as opposed to more direct interactions that some refer to as f2f (face to face) communication; something that is "real".

In a "real" world situation, there is the whole aspect of body language, atmosphere, and other people that yields a heavy influence on the way we act, think, behave, as well as the things that we choose to say. In an online situation, many of these variables that we encounter in an f2f situation are nullified.

We are only faced with a computer monitor, the keyboard, and the text that is typed out.

With that said, it would seem that the situation that one is placed in plays a large role in our level of interactivity with another; be it f2f or in a virtual world setting.

Now, let's take a look at this with some simple examples.

Party (or any other similar f2f scenario)
When we, ultimately, choose to take part in some social activity that involves f2f interaction with others, we are thrown into a situation where there is this over-arching belief and assumption that the goal of this setting is to be able to mingle with others and to give off the impression that you, the individual, is someone that is trustworthy, gregarious, and amicable.

Maybe that is sincerely, the type of person one may be, the in virtually all cases, we do tend to go off in slight tangents and sometimes exaggerate ourselves on others.

People tend to do this unconsciously as if we all yearn for this mysterious something in life. Maybe it's friendship, love, or simply the quest for "truth". Whatever it may be, it is something that we do.

These rules, for lack of a better term, are roles that we play given the situation. But are these roles really who we are? Is this how you would behave all the time, or do you behave slightly differently given the situation and the people that you are involving your self with in such situation?

Each of us, essentially play a role and continue to modify this role as the situation changes.

Now, let's move on to the virtual aspect...

What we are faced with in a virtual setting is the removal of the physical self (i.e. removal of f2f contact) by replacing it with something more meta-physical; our mind if you will.

When we choose to put ourselves into the role of the self without the f2f situation, there is more of an opportunity to be more honest if you will. But that does not necessarily mean that everyone is honest online as many of you probably are aware.

The users are all starting on a more level playing ground in a non-f2f situation.

With a real wold, f2f scenario, we are dealing with the mind of course, but the f2f variable tends to be a bit disruptive in our normal patterns of behavior. We see who other individuals surround themselves with, what they are wearing, the types of topics being discussed, the way that the people speak with each other, the body language given off...all these variables lead us to creating schema to which results in our output (i.e. behavior & actions) to the people we are associating with.

So why exactly is it that with an online situation, we tend to either be more open, or tend to be completely secretive or anonymous?

The variables that once confined our selves and our minds to this perceived required set of actions are believed to be removed.

Online, we are not really there, but still exist in a more meta-physical way. This is done so through our minds. What we communicate via virtual means, has a more direct-to-business type of manner whereas a f2f situation has more interpreting involved. The fact that the interpretation step is taken out of the situation, yields a level of perceived freedom.

With this, we are able to be more honest and direct, or we can choose to completely deceive another, by keeping our identity anonymous to the recipient of the interaction.

What exactly do you supposed creates all this? The shroud of anonymity...why is it that many of us perceive that it exists when comparing virtual to f2f scenarios?

Or better yet, why is it that many of us are unable to communicate in a more direct-to-business type of manner in f2f situation, and instead opt to include all these superfluous steps that require analyzing and interpreting?

Life is complicated as it is. So why are we further complicating it? Why not be more clear-cut?

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

FaceBook Friends...Real Or Fake?

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/06/15/friends-with-benefits-do-facebook-friends-provide-the-same-support-as-those-in-real-life.aspx?GT1=43002

There's an article. Read it. Take it for how you see it.

Some people may find that people with "virtual" friends are odd, but many should (after some thinking) realize that "virtual" friends may be better than no friends at all. Sure, these FaceBook "friends" tend to create more acquaintances than what many would consider "friends", but what it is that most consider to be "real" as opposed to "virtual" impedes some; from some of the more viable applications in life, that is through virtue of "virtual" reality.

Reality of Contructed Characters - Part 1

This begins a small mini-series of blog entries that I will make over the next few days~weeks. It is strictly coming from a paper that I had written in a philosophy course that I had taken.

I will be dividing up the paper into parts and seeing what other people have to say. I am not literally copying + pasting the actual paper here obviously as that would provide no further insight for me.

First off, many of you are aware of the terms "real" and "virtual". But what do those 2 words really mean to you?

Is it far fetched to say that something "virtual" has no "real" existence merely on the premise that it does not physically interact, but is an interaction between 0s and 1s being processed inside of a computer as a result of the input that you, the user, gives while on a computer?

Quite possibly that in itself could be enough to justify some people's belief that "virtual" is in no way "real". However, others would disagree that even though it is not physically in existence, it does have some "reality" applications.

When someone explicit tells another to "Get a life." What do they mean, really? The "real" world life that people physically embodies is what is most likely being requested to do when one gives the statement, "Get a life."

But, there is actually a "life" from a virtual point of view. This "life" though not physically viewable, requires thought, care, and some level of basic skill for one to begin being involved with.

How one may ask?

Well, such things include FaceBook, YouTube, MySpace, AIM, Twitter, World of WarCraft, Second Life...and even this blog.

From a social point of view (speaking in regards to the "real" world), a life is often comprised of individual inhabiting an area among others. These individual gather to form a community, and within this community many activities occur every day.

Strictly from that point of view, a "virtual world" is quite contrary to its name. If we consider it from that point of view, the "virtual" world is actually a "real life setting".

There are:

a. individuals (in the form of users)
b. there are communities (blogs, forums, chat rooms, World of WarCraft, Facebook, etc)
c. there are activities (chatting, posting messages, playing games, sending emails)

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

Parents (part 2)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Mississippi-Boy-9-Shot-Dead-In-Video-Game-Row-In-Marshall-County/Article/200906215300047?f=rss

So yea. What do we see here?

A death of a young individual by his own sibling, both underaged.

First of all, apparently, the complication was a result of fighting over a videogame. That will probably set the scapegoating flags into motion, but the general public.

But~

"He said the boys' father was outside mowing the lawn at the time of the incident."

Where was the mother? If there is no mother in this familial setting, then what exactly was the father mowing the lawn for while the kids were playing videogames with a weapon of potential mass devastation left in the house? But more concerning, what was the weapon doing in the house open to access by the children?

I would say that is a lack of parenting right there. What kind of a message is the parent (in this case the father) giving to the children? Probably nothing as the gun seems to have carelessly been left out.

Kids have the tendency to easily get upset with competitive activities. In this case, videogames was the medium.

If the father at least was aware that his children had the tendency to get upset easily and in a spur of the moment, the child may have believed that a gun would be a good way to 'show who's boss', maybe...just maybe, 1 of his kids did not have to die in that careless and unfortunate manner?

If a father, or any adult in general, believes that he/she is mature and competent enough to raise children and have a weapon in the house, I believe that the adult should have the care to at least make sure the weapon is out of access by the underage children, as they often lack the competence to understand how dangerous a gun really is and, albeit an accident in this case, that it really can kill someone.

" 'it appeared to be an accident anyway'." right...just an accident so just slip it under the rug.

The father may need to receive some counseling of some sort to make it clear that if he is to leave 2 underaged children unattended inside their home where there is free access to a gun (let alone any weapon), that maybe the parent is not competent enough to take care of the children.

Imagine what the child who did the accidental killing feels and thinks right now. He sees that his brother was killed with a shotgun at his hands; albeit an "accident". But imagine what it would feel like for him years later to realize what he had done. And then consider what he may feel when he realizes that 2 children were left unattended with a weapon inside the house.

The children really are not to blame. No one really should be blamed in this situation. The father was incompetent and the children were incompetent. If anything was to be blamed, it would be the lack of care from both parties.

Maybe there is a lack of decent education in that area? For an 11 year old to not be able to understand that if he does hold a shotgun to his 9 year old brother, he may accidentally kill him; not wound...kill, is a bit scary.

Incidents like this are things that are unnecessary and unfortunate. Children should never witness nor take part in such "accidents" as the ramifications in their near future has the tremendous potential of being too much.

What do you think about this. Post your comments below.

Parents

(I'm sorry for not posting a new entry in a little while. I was just honestly a bit upset from receiving essentially no comments. I have received a few now so far. I appreciate and thank those who have commented so far. I hope to receive more comments in the near and coming future).

Have you ever considered where many of the social issues originate from? There are, of course, many origins to these "issues", but one of the more major (or at least more influencing) factor is poor parenting.

As suggested/hinted at in my previous entry parents play a significant role in our people turn out.

The old saying about how the children are the "future" is quite true. What I believe many parents fail to realize is that their offspring are the future. A poor level of parenting significantly contributes to the child not having a clear focus on life.

Many of these individuals often end up doing illegal drugs, committing petty thievery, and all sorts of horrible things.

Some end up being addicted to, for example, World of Warcraft. Others block their minds out from the rest of the "real world" and turn themselves completely into the "virtual world".

It is true that many of us enjoy technology, such as the Internet, but the distinguishing factor here is the level of involvement.

Another issue with parents in general is something quite unfortunate. As many of you readers probably have experienced or know of someone who as, parents tend to compare their children to others. It's almost as if parents see their children as a commodity or a property and continuously compete with other parents and their kids to be "better".

What is "better"? Is it just grades, "achievements", what college the child gets accepted into, the kinds of hobbies involved, clubs...

Although these activities enrich the mind, it would seem that many parents unfortunately live by this competitive setting.

Competition is good and healthy. But there are more things to life than these things.

What a child learns, the experiences, the chance to free-think for themselves, the chance to do what he/she wants to do (as opposed to told to do), the chance to figure things out on their own (no matter how long it takes), the freedom to make mistakes and learn...

That's something that should be stressed. This hyper-competitive world that we live in today almost blinds us; a sandbox if you will. These Socio-mental barriers that prevents many children (of whom will collectively literally become the future) are being pushed away from their potential because of these demands.

Of course, when a parent is questioned about, most will say that they are good parents and let their children do this and that. But really?

There seems to be this traditional, generic life path that is set for the child. The parent may allow the child to do some things on their own, but often we see the child being criticized with the response, "See? I told you so." and then in "successes" often the child is given a "Good job!" response. But really...is that at the child or a self-reassuring mechanism?

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

Update
I found a relevant YouTube clip that displays poor parenting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dXcIZFPpow

There are a few issues here.

1. How could a parent not be able to watch over these children to the point where another child actually dies from suffocation?

2. How could a child be not competent enough to understand that burying anyone in sand and leaving that individual there for minutes can lead to suffocation and possibly death?

3. For a television show such as Naruto, how could a parent not be aware that the show may be impressionable on the child and to either moderate the child when the child is watching it or simply not allow the child to watch it?

4. What happened to the parents teaching the child the difference between "virtual reality" and "reality"?

* I am not necessarily saying that violent media (in this case Naruto, albeit intended for audiences who are a bit more competent and mature), is a definite cause to replicating the same kind of behaviors.

* The issue I am discussing is the lack of parenting, or at least some form of supervision. Younger children tend to be more impressionable from everything that they experience.

* Should it really take a death of a child for a parent to be surprised or shocked that something like this could happen? In this case, I would probably guess that this parent(s) would simply come to the conclusion that Naruto is automatically bad and it is the cause for all of such behavior.

* Often, this type of thinking process would be considered scapegoating. Yes, it is strongly suggested that what the child did does resemble much of what he must have viewed on Naruto, however for the child to actually go about and mimic what he saw is a disturbing, especially when the child should have been at least able to conceptualize (i.e. imagine) what would happen if such steps were taken as to mimic what he saw on the television.

* I would hope that after this incident that the parent discussed with the child what he did was inappropriate. I would also hope that the parents don't simply blame Naruto for this behavior as if the parents were aware or at least more involved with the child, I would assume that it is likely the child may view Naruto but probably not go as far as to taking the life of (what I assume to be) a friend.

World of Warcraft: An Addiction or A Hobby?

World of WarCraft. As many of you are probably (at least) aware, is a cultural phenomenon that has taken the world quite literally.

According to Gamasutra, "Blizzard Entertainment has announced that World of Warcraft has recently passed 10 million subscribers worldwide since its launch on November 23, 2004. " (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17062) As of right now, its number of subscribed users is probably higher.

What exactly is this for those who are unfamiliar?

For starters, World of Warcraft of an MMORPG. This acronym stands for Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. The general premise of this MMORPG, as with most software that falls within this genre of entertainment, involves the creation of a game character that you wish to play as. Many of the more modern titles, give options to alter the way the character appears.

As you progress further into this MMORPG, you acquire items, equipment, and skills of which you utilize to progress even further into the game.

Do keep in mind that World of WarCraft actually does not have an "end" like many games have. Every so often, an expansion to the game is released. As it stands now, there are 2 such expansions titled The Burning Crusades and Wrath of the Lich King. Each of these expansions to the title adds additional content for players of this "world" to further immerse themselves into.

An important bit of information to be aware of is that in order to continue to play this game, a user must pay a $15 monthly fee. Also keep in mind that World of WarCraft currently retails for $19.99, and The Burning Crusades retails for $29.99 while The Wrath of the Lich King retails for $39.99. Also, keep in mind that these MSRP (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price) is lowered every so often.

So...

a. a player needs to purchase the original software
b. if the player wants to continue to play the game then it would make sense to purchase all of the expansion titles
c. if the players wants to continue to play the game and the expansions, then the player must continue to pay the $15 monthly fee

Does it seem like a scam? Maybe to some outsiders, but to those who are involved with this title, it may seem like a price worth paying in order to continue their social standings amongst other WoW (World of WarCraft) players.

Do keep in mind that I personally have never engaged myself in game. Although is does sound like an interesting opportunity that I could engage myself in, strictly speaking from an opportunity cost point of view, the game would involve too much money to continue playing and far too my time investment.

Now that we have the general bits of information laid out, let's take a look at this game from a psychological point of view.

What we essentially have here is an alternate form of reality where the physical medium (our physical body) is separated by our minds' involvement with a virtual reality setting.

For reasons that differ depending on the person, some may use World of WarCraft as a form of escape from the hectic and demanding world of "reality", others may utilize this game as a form of social networking with people; many of whom the individual will not meet in "reality", and others may use it as a form of escape from their own minds; sort of like a medium by which one would be distracted enough to forget (at least temporarily) the thoughts that go through our minds throughout the day.

In a sense, World of WarCraft can potentially be seen as an addiction; something that people have criticized it to be in the past as this YouTube clip displays.

"World of Warcraft Addict"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8hfK3RQs2g

Although this young man may have issues based on (according to the clip):

- 16 hours a day
- personality changes; becoming moody& violent
-

Right away, the news reporter shows the bias by saying that "His addiction is tearing the family apart."

"They don't realize how addictive it can be."

"It's addiction and an illness."

"I'm addicted to the game, but I'm not fully addicted."

Maybe the young man is addicted to the game. Maybe he is not. However, this news report would seem to suggest that World of Warcraft is strictly the sole culprit of ruining the family. It might be an issue with the family, but what is odd is that this family fails to realize that there might be other issues that this teenage male is dealing with. World of Warcraft may simply be a medium by which he is able to cope with these feelings of hostility and confusion; something that is quite common during the teenage years.

How addictive can it get? Very. However, is it far fetched to say that virtually anything can become a source of addiction and to an extent, and obsessions if used or involved in excess?

Unfortunately, this clip does not delve into details on the family, but rather focuses on the young man's avid involvement with World of Warcraft. Hence, not much can be said here other than what can be extrapolated from this clip and what the speakers say.

They call the "addiction" to the game the same as an illness. Be that as it may, it does seem to be stretching it to be calling it an illness. It is abnormal for anyone to be involved in one computer game for that many hours at a time, but calling this addiction an illness seems to suggest that there is some kind of a disease. Calling it an illness will probably lead to the young man denying his "...fully addicted..." status and probably end up continuing to play.

In the clip, the man interviewing the young man questioned the "friends". That in a sense seemed a bit insulting to the younger man. Why?

First of all, the young man is probably aware that others see something wrong with him playing for 16 hours a day. But be reaffirming by questioning him seemed a bit unnecessary. Judging by the body language, it would seem that the interviewer seemed to be making a condescending remark.

Let's take a look at this with an example with a issue that many people around the world are faced with.

Weight loss.

We all know about the issues and controversies surrounding the topic of weight loss. We see many that are severely overweight, want to do something about it, and try even if it is in the smallest way.

But what do you think goes around in a severely overweight individual when he/she seems commercials about being overweight, people constantly reminding the individual about being overweight, watching TV and seeing what the "ideal" weight for a person to be is, etc.

It's all very condescending.

Something that is quite wrong, unethical, and unnecessary is the whole condescending nature about this issue (World of Warcraft or any other similar situations). It is unnecessary.

The individual being criticized realizes that there is something that bothers another or a group of others, and the individual is trying (even if it is simply mentally sorting out some things that can be done). But being reminded (verbally, or in any other way) constantly seems to build up a sense of shame, and ultimately worse doubt in one's sense of being able to improve one's self.

Is it so wrong to not be "perfect"? We are human, and humans are by default imperfect beings; be it in the way we think, act, and behave.

What we have here with the World of Warcraft example is the WoW player being subtly told that there is something absolutely wrong with the individual and that he must change because he is not "normal".

But what is "normal"? Is "normal" a relative term used to describe what a culture believes to be a "norm"; as in generally accepted rules (be it explicit or implicit) that a culture holds to be "true". That might be the case. But what is "normal" when humans are by nature unique, even in the smallest detail? Being unique separates us from the everyday, mundane norms of society.

This WoW player is by all means unique, and also shares many unique characteristics as the many other WoW players. By those standards, there is nothing wrong. It might even be common to see WoW players amongst the WoW community playing a minimum of 16 hours a day. Maybe not.

The point here is that people should not be criticized for being seemingly abnormal. There might be other factors contributing to the situation. If the individual is unable to express his feelings and emotions at all, what do you think would happen? It would be an absolute catrostrophe; quite possibly physically violent in many ways.

We don't know the whole story with this WoW player. As with many WoW players, there could possibly be some larger issues; many of which are personal. Other WoW players may simply enjoy the game and play the 16 hours a day, but not everyday.

In this case, it would seem that WoW is being blamed; scapegoated by the parents for the parents lack of ability to understand what the teenage is going through in life. It would seem that there is little to no involvement from the mother (since she is the only parent shown in the clip). The issue here (from what is shown) is that it would seem that:

a. the parent has little involvement with what is going on in the teenager's life
b. WoW is being taken as just game
c. playing WoW equals addiction which equals a "problem"
d. no other possible reasoning is being considered

In essence, WoW is being solely focused on. The teenager is having trouble in school to the point where he left. In the video, it would seem that they believe that WoW is the reason why the teenager left school. This might be the case, but, he may have left school from feeling uncomfortable around his peers, maybe he was ridiculed, or maybe he sincerely feels unmotivated to be in an educational institution.

That does seem like it could be a result of many factors that the teenager may have gone through. For "addiction" of WoW to be able to directly and solely cause him to drop out of school is unlikely. There is most likely a reason why he would go about deciding to do this, and it is not too far fetched to say that poor parenting (or no parenting) may have contributed to this end.

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

UPDATE#1
I have found an interesting and relevant article.

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/08/7459.ars

Clinical psychologist and founder of Computer Addiction Services claims that 40% of WoW players are addicted. So, then that means that more than half (60% in this case) are not addicted.

Online Dating

What is it with the "popularity" of online dating sites lately? Many of us know that there are many fraudulent users on such sites that attempt to make himself/herself appear a certain way believing/hoping that someone would actually search there and get a result that such person is a "perfect" match.

Maybe it is, maybe it's not. But certainly there does seem to be some psychological issues being raised here.

For one, many people tend to lie or stretch the truth a little about themselves. They sense a level of unease at their "true" selves; what they perceive themselves to be and or how it is perceived that other people view the individual.

In the end, it really should not matter as you are who you are, and it is virtually impossible to authentically change your personality & characteristics. Sure you might appear to behave a different way after some time, but most likely this change in behavior is a public persona; essentially an act that you put on for the duration of interacting or being physically present with a certain group of individuals.

Another issue here is that the internet is being used. That in itself should be a warning sign that the individual that is seeking another is not confident enough with his self but wants some kind of a relationship with another. The end goal is, by all means, is admirable, but the means by which; or more specifically the medium by which one is attempting to reach such said goal suggests many things.

Of the many things that it suggests, one is that the individual is uncomfortable with the self. If one can not be confident & comfortable with the self, how can one expect that another (who happens to be using the internet) will feel comfortable around the other and maybe even the self?

Is it not "true", for the most part, that in order to love you need to be able to love yourself? What do I mean?

Look at the phrase...

I LOVE YOU.

You need to be able to learn, accept, or understand what it means to love the self first, before being able to have the capacity to love another.

For those who are unfamiliar with online dating site, please click the following links below. Copyrights to songs, website names, etc belong to the the respective companies.

eHarmony Advertisement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3e10FP2UyI

"...if I kept dating the same type of people, or you know, trying to meet them in the same places, I would have the same results."

In this commercial, we see a young man who claims that he had been dating the same type of people and, apparently, in the same place. The question here is, if this man had negative experiences (for what it seems many times), why would he continue to date in the same manner? Would it not seem logical to change something, for example, like where he found his dates?

That might be the whole point of eHarmony in the location, but the point is that online dating (though it may or may not work) has some issues with the person in the first place. And to be going to an internet source where, most likely, all users have the same or similar issues is a problem.

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

Violent Media. What Is Its Effect? Is There Even One?

What do you think about violent media? Do you think that they really do cause/sole cause of violent behavior in children?

There have been much controversy over this issue as many of you are probably aware.

Personally, I feel it's more of a blame-game/scape goat type of scenario. It would seem to me that feelings of inadequacy by the parent/guardian to properly take care, watch over, and be aware of what their child/young adult is feeling is being transferred to something that the child/young adult invests much time into.

In this case, it would be videogames and other forms of media (TV, movies, music). Pretty soon, I suspect that Internet will be blamed.

Below, are some links to some things that have occurred recently.

April 2007, Virgina Tech incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho

another article
http://www.livescience.com/technology/051204_video_violence.html
"The assertion that video games make people violent got a boost in May of 2000, when the American Psychological Association issued a press release saying that violent video games can increase aggression. That conclusion was taken from a study by two researchers, Craig Anderson of Iowa State University and Karen Dill of Lenoir-Rhyne College in North Carolina. The pair claimed that they had found a link between violent video games and aggression.

Yet an examination of what the researchers actually found shows how tentative their conclusions are. The study seems to show some association between the playing of violent video games and concurrent aggressive behavior and delinquency. Yet, as any social sciences or psychology student knows, correlation does not imply causation"

"Violent Video Games Under Attack"
http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2004/07/64101
"The debate reflects a divide in the way people perceive games. Are games harmless, perhaps even cathartic, as many people who grew up playing them believe? Or are they teaching kids to be more aggressive, and in extreme cases, to kill?"

American Psychology Association
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

"FAQs on Violent Video Games and Other Media Violence"
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/video_game_faqs.html

You be the judge of the issue. What do you think is wrong/right about violent media being the absolute cause of violent behavior in many videogamers or users of violent media?

What do you think about this? Please comment below.

Is Virtual Reality A Blessing Or A Curse?

Do you or anyone else you know use any of the following?

AIM
FaceBook
MSN Live Messenger
MySpace
Skype
Twitter

...a cell phone? Text messaging? Using any of the listed above on a cell phone?

I'm sure that many of you personally use them, had used them, or at least know a handful of people who frequently uses them daily.

Technology can be a wonderful thing. However, have you ever considered what it, as in social networking sites, are really doing to us?

On 1 hand, it is quite convenient to be able to check up on what other people are doing (online or in "real life") via computers and cellphones, but on the other hand, it seems that these online communication tools (OCTs) are creating multiple subcultures.

Of the few, the one that will be discussed in this post in reference to complete dependence of online for any and all communication.

As many of you are probably aware, technology grows at an amazing rate. It opens us to communicate with people who live on the other side of the world with relative ease. However, what is it really that compels us to communicate with, for example, our friends who live maybe down the street via online?

This is not to say that OCTs are completely bad and should be banned. However, this is more in reference to those who specifically use OCTs for all forms of communication; essentially the degree of use.

Many of you will say that you don't really use OCTs in your life, but with society today and how everything is structured around technology and being able to quickly communicate is essentially demanded by everyone, it is essentially impossible to live a life without ever encountering OCT.

But what exactly is the reason why so many of use exclusively use OCTs other than it being convenient and quick? Maybe there's more of a reason why we do so.

I mean seriously think about it. It is understandable to use it to get things done quickly but to those who use it in excess might have some underlying reason that he/she is not revealing to others.

It might be for reasons of fear; fear of judgement. It would seem reasonable for someone to fear judgement from others be it their physical state of being, the clothing being worn, and other things. Is the internet essentially the cloak from society? Is the internet being used to hide their physical being and in exchange for socializing via their virtual self with their mind (i.e. the real part of the real self); the online identifier (i.e. user name) being a medium?

What do you think about this? Please comment below.