MUDding vs. Smoking the Ganja Green

The first thing that comes to mind while reading Howard Rheingold’s chapter “Multi-User Dungeons and Alternate Identities” was how bizarre these internet communities are. I’m sure for every non-MUDder, the same thought rings true every time a discussion on internet games comes up (or if you’re like me, where internet gaming rarely comes up, you keep your opinions buried deep inside so you don’t offend anybodies feelings). Something else popped into my head, a different type of thought that was spurred by Rheingold saying “is this a dangerous form of addiction?” Well that got me thinking, is it? Are MUDs any different then smoking pot? I did a little research and my findings surprised me a little bit.

Legality aside, what are the key differences between playing a MUD game and smoking that reefer? I poked around the internet and stumbled across a marijuana fact sheet published by the ADA (Division of American Drug Abuse http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm) that is actually posted on the WELL network, apparently it’s not a small world anymore, sorry Disney. Here is one of the questions asked to this doctor:

What about psychological dependence on marijuana?

Long-term regular users of marijuana may become psychologically dependent. They may have a hard time limiting their use, they may need more of the drug to get the same effect, and they may develop problems with their jobs and personal relationships. The drug can become the most important aspect of their lives.

I'm no doctor, but this can easily be changed after reading this Rheingold article to say something like this:

What about psychological dependence on Multi-User Dungeons?

Long-term regular MUDders may become psychologically dependent and obsessive with a particular game. They may have a hard time limiting their use, they may need more of the game to get the same effect, and they may develop problems with their jobs and personal relationships. The game can become the most important aspect of their lives.

All joking aside now, there is something to be said about this new and dangerous form of addiction. Smoking weed is commonly looked down upon by teachers and parents, with good reasons. Weed appears to make users lazy and stupid even though there is limited scientific information that proves that to be true. There are also very limited health risks that a user faces while smoking pot. I’ve seen firsthand how real a weed addiction, although purely psychological, can affect someone. On the other hand, I’ve also seen how much more dangerous it is to be addicted to a game then it is to be addicted to weed. MUDs take up hours of a user’s life and before they even know it they’ve wasted a whole day. Online gaming is a form of distraction, one that may not “get you high” but one that limits the way one lives their lives, ones REAL LIFE, not one of the other three they have online. I’m in no way advocating the use of marijuana, rather I’m pointing out that maybe drugs are not the most dangerous thing facing our youth in the future, maybe online gaming will become the next great epidemic to plague a youth that has already been heavily-saturated with the use of technology. Are drugs now becoming a retro problem for todays youth? Only time can tell, stay tuned folks.

THANK YOU, Mr. Rheingold...

Indirectly, Howard Rheingold has reinforced every notion I have about using the internet to escape reality. I say indirectly because he is arguing quite the opposite of what I am about to go into, but the points he uses make my argument more solid. I will be focusing on the beginning of the introduction as in typical Rheingold fashion the argument becomes extremely diluted and repetitive. Rheingold talks about his experiences on the WELL network (Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link) and all the different people he has met on the site. Here’s my beef, as I have voiced several times in class already, these are random people that I have heard time and time again referred to as “friends.” Not once did Rheingold refer to any of these online people as his friends rather he called them “invisible friends,” meaning they aren’t there. He continues on by saying, “I had contended with these [invisible friends], shot the invisible breeze around the electronic water cooler, shared alliances and formed bonds, fallen off my chair laughing with them, become livid with anger at some of them. But there wasn’t a recognizable face in the house. I had never seen them before.” Sounds like times one would have with their friends while hanging out, the major difference is that in real life, you actually share experiences with each other; you can go out and do things with each other. Using Rheingold, I will show why these interactions are not normal behavior for any human.

A common abbreviation found on the WELL is IRL, which stands for In Real Life. Now, this argument of using the internet to escape ones reality has been shot down several times in class, but here it is in plain writing. Rheingold’s admitting it, anyone who has ever used the abbreviation is admitting it and our professor has admitted it without even knowing it. Creating an alternative identity on the internet is a pathetic way to escape ones reality. Not only does this kind of interaction take up a lot of your time, but it limits you to be sitting in front of your computer. While sitting on your computer, you’re missing out on everything that your natural reality offers you. Exercise, intercourse and nature are a few that come to mind as I think about the things I could be doing with my “real-life” instead of creating a fake life I’m more comfortable in. I’m not saying that an open exchange of information is a bad thing; I actually think that it is a great medium to exchange information. I find it weird that there are people who have to make friends on the internet because they can’t do it in real-life. This is a very harsh criticism and I’m sure that it will face a lot of opposition, but living a duel-life doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me. If you are not comfortable with your own reality, why take the time to create another one? Why don’t you work on the reality you currently live in so you don’t feel like you have to start over online.

We Are All Stupider!

Andrew Keen’s chapter “the noble amateur” takes a deeper look into amateur journalism on the internet. While this is the first I’ve read of Keen, I am fairly confident that he would agree with me that the internet has made us all more stupid. Although the reading really only covers the pitfalls of amateur journalism, including misinformation and real-media expendability, I want to delve deeper into the effects amateur journalism and the internet in general have on society as a whole.

For starters, Keen makes several good points that I have found to be evident in our class. Keen claims that bloggers and other amateur journalists “are the digital equivalent of online gated communities where all the people have identical views and the whole conversation is mirrored in a way that is reassuringly familiar.” So our professor goes online to talk to other popular culture professors about what she should put on her syllabus. She has found a community that she is comfortable in because they share many of the same points of view, or POV in internet slang. Well here’s the problem with that, that’s one side of the popular culture argument. Keens article is the first example that we have looked over that is challenging the ideas of popular culture. This class has become an environment where the internet can do no wrong, has no downside. Going online to a community that shares liberal ideals concerning internet use by society makes it seem like we are learning biased information, which we are. Keen is giving the other side to the internet that we have yet to and probably won’t even touch in this class. Amateur journalism is an unreliable source of information as often times the knowledge is skewed and based off of public opinion then passed off as truth. Though there are biases in mainstream media, the resources and connections they have trump that of amateur journalist.

Mainstream media has also fallen victim to amateur journalism. Whether it is Wikipedia forcing Britannica to lay-off workers or media having to clarify rumors spread by bloggers, the role of mainstream is taking a hit. After the Tsunami that destroyed the surrounding areas of the Indian Ocean, amateurs started claiming to have taken pictures of the destruction which major newspapers began to publish. In this article published online, http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=195680&area=/insight/insight__columnists/, it shows the newspapers that had to apologize because it used these pictures taken by amateurs that ended up being fake. Thus, showing a major pitfall of amateur journalism, who are you supposed to believe? We as a society are more stupid because we are ignorant to the fact that information posted on blogs and Wikipedia is generally an opinion opposed to factual information.