Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
GIST
![Anne Dalke's picture Anne Dalke's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-39.jpg)
Welcome to "GIST": A Course about Gender, Information, Science and Technology, offered in Spring 2011 @ Bryn Mawr College. This is an interestingly different kind of place for writing, and may take some getting used to. The first thing to keep in mind is that this is not a place for "formal writing" or "finished thoughts." It's a place for thoughts-in-progress, for what you're thinking (whether you know it or not) on your way to what you think next. Imagine that you're not worrying about "writing" but instead that you're just talking to some people you've met. This is a "conversation" place, a place to find out what you're thinking yourself, and what other people are thinking, so you can help them think and they can help you think. The idea is that your "thoughts in progress" can help others with their thinking, and theirs can help you with yours.
We're glad you're here, and hope you'll come both to enjoy and value our shared imagining of the future evolution of ourselves as individuals and of our gendered, scientific, technological world. Feel free to comment on any post below, or to POST YOUR THOUGHTS HERE....
![MSA322's picture MSA322's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-868.jpg)
Conflicting
From the readings and the video of Stelarc we saw, thoughts would not stop coming to my mind. Thoughts about how mind-blowing the world we live in is. I kept wondering, is technology really something that's benefiting us, humans? We've created it, we are its creators and we supplied it with power in the intention of aiding ourselves and making life easier, but now the question that's been posted and that's been popping to my head after the reading from Haraway is that, is the machine we have created become a part of us? Is it really helping making our lives better and easier? Or are our machines going to take over our world and our lives? The thought of "no separation" is very new, very foreign, and very scary.
![Anne Dalke's picture Anne Dalke's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-39.jpg)
testing 2
and this time w/ the word button:
This is a test!
From 2008 for Mac: Version 12/2/6 (00708)
![shin1068111's picture shin1068111's picture](/exchange//files/images/SerendipStudioAvatar.png)
Desire to seek non-biological resources
I would like to start this post with a comment on the Selarc video we watched at the beginning of the class.
![anonymous123's picture anonymous123's picture](/exchange//files/images/SerendipStudioAvatar.png)
Women and Smartphones
According to the New York Times article, "Smartphones Now Ringing for Women" by Laura M. Holson, there is an increasing number of women who are choosing to use smartphones.
At the time the article was written, the number of women who were using smartphones was about 10.4 million, a number that was twice the previous year's. The number of users has undoubtedly grown since then.
![rubikscube's picture rubikscube's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-870.jpg)
"ContRole" Reversal
What really stuck out to me in Clark’s essay was the image of Stelarc’s third robotic arm. Stelarc was able to control his mechanical arm using his own stomach and leg muscles, along with controlling one of his biological arms. But his other biological arm was being controlled by a computer, with the help of an operator. As a computer science major, I study how I can control a computer, so I've never really thought about a computer controlling me.
![Apocalipsis's picture Apocalipsis's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-836.jpg)
Our Brains Technological Withdrawl ?
According to Clark, humans are natural born cyborgs, ready to embrace technology. While in class on Thursday, I found our discussion of human extended cognition, the role of agency on technology, the natural desire for humans to seek technological advances, our prejudice against technology, and our nature/ nurture debate of our use/ relations with technology to be rather interesting. However, I am concerned with human growing relations to technology. In primitive times, we did not have as much electronically powered resources, but I wonder if our obsession/ dependence on it is changing the way our brains are structured.
![cara's picture cara's picture](/exchange//files/images/SerendipStudioAvatar.png)
Post 2: Natural Born Cyborgs
When I first started to read Clark's piece I was skeptical of the notion of being a 'natural-born cyborg'. It seemed like a ridiculous notion. However, as I began to understand his argument it began to make sense. The mere act of writing on paper has become a mnemonic tool for me. My thoughts seem very delicate and unclear to me until I write them down; the act alone allowing me to remember ideas even without consulting my notes. While few animals besides humans use tools, it seems that for us they are a necessity.
![MissArcher2's picture MissArcher2's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-732.jpg)
No boundaries?
One of my favorite family stories happened last Easter, when my Mom was taking pictures of me and all my cousins outside. My youngest cousin, about two and walking but barely speaking at the time, kept breaking away from the group between shots and hanging on my mom's arms. No one could figure out what she wanted until my mom put the camera down for a minute and my little cousin immediately started looking at the pictures. My mom couldn't stop marveling about the idea that someone so young already understood this technology, having only mastered digital photography very recently herself.
![tnarine's picture tnarine's picture](/exchange//files/images/SerendipStudioAvatar.png)
Life's a great balancing act!
Clark describes “scaffolding” as the support system offered by technology to people. Interestingly, when Clark speaks to a colleague about his research, he learns about cognitive scaffolding. Here, technology acts as a memory support which debilitates our memories. For instance, a cell phone now has the ability to keep one’s schedule and to even remind them before the event occurs. This “scaffold” has enabled people to keep their appointments and be on time however, if their technology fails, their world comes crashing down. Clark tells us to forget the fear of a world where technology takes over by using the phrase post human.
![vgaffney's picture vgaffney's picture](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/bfc843972a4d87fb522edaa00ba14a61.jpg?d=https%3A%2F%2Fserendipstudio.org%2Fexchange%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2FSerendipStudioAvatar.png&s=85&r=G)
A biotechnologically hybrid mind
I found Clark’s article fascinating and eye-opening. I have always felt a bit apprehensive about the future of technology and what its advancement might mean for the future of us as people and a society. I was deeply troubled by an article I read a few years ago that posited a future in which human-technology synthesis would result in immortal ‘people’. Although quite a large—if not unbelievable—claim I still felt unnerved by the article’s painstaking and convincing analysis of this future. A future with such uncharacteristically ‘human’ advancements is unsurprisingly disconcerting.
![Riki's picture Riki's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-295.png)
catching up
Going back to Monday's conversation... The question was asked, can we really become one with everything? Someone in class said that skin is a physical boundary between and organism and its environment. I disagree with this. Our bodies are constantly interacting with the environment -- sharing electrons, exchanging gases and nutrients, hosting viruses and bacteria, etc. So I don't really see extending ourselves into technology as something completely foreign.
![Riki's picture Riki's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-295.png)
Class summary for day 3
On Day 3, "Natural Born Cyborgs,"
We first watched the Selarc video, which mentioned the idea of the body as a sculptural medium and an evolutionary architecture. Many people in the class seemed disturbed and/or intrigued by the art. Thinning the boundary between self and other makes us feel existentially uncomfortable.
We reflected on our initial postings and the Clark reading:
![Franklin20's picture Franklin20's picture](/exchange//files/images/SerendipStudioAvatar.png)
Natural Born Cyborg?
As I stated in class, I really disagree with Clarks claims that humans are "Natural Born Cyborgs." I understand what both Clark and Harraway are doing in their articles; they are using culturally loaded terms, in this case "technology" and "cyborgs", and challenges the reader to redefine them. For instance, at one point Clark argues that simply using a pen to write is technological advancement and that because we are so able to adapt and use tools as extensions of ourselves we are "natural born cyborgs" ("cyborg" here challenges the reader to think of a cyborg as not one who is physically grafted with metal or one who becomes part machine but rather one who uses tools).
![fawei's picture fawei's picture](/exchange//files/images/SerendipStudioAvatar.png)
Cyborgs, animals, distinction
It’s odd how our relationship with technology and becoming cyborgs with technology based/affected ‘scaffolding’ is something Clark describes as being exclusive to the human mind, or something that defines us. Being ‘primed to seek’ helpful technology seems a lot like a survival instinct, but strangely Clark speaks against evolutionary psychology. A lot of the intuitive integration of technology even simple ones such the multiplication tables he talks about on page 6, are things that we get familiar with not because we naturally absorb them, but because we feel they will benefit us (or there’s punishment for not memorizing them.)
![leamirella's picture leamirella's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-855.jpg)
Leaky Distinctions vs. Scaffolding.
What is a 'cyborg'? According to the dictionary on my MacBook, a 'cyborg' is a:
'Fictional or hypothetical person whose physical abilities are extended beyond human limitations by mechanical elements built into the body."
This definition itself is not clear. The phrases "human limitations" and "mechanical elements" strike me as being unclear as they can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways. What are "human limitations" and what makes an element "mechanical". Given the lack of clarity, its virtually impossible to ascribe anything to the category of a "cyborg". And this is true of other terms. For example, the category of 'female'. My dictionary says that the definition of 'female' is:
![Hilary_Brashear's picture Hilary_Brashear's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-863.jpg)
Downside to Clark's envisioning of the future
An idea that Clark did not address in his discussion was the access to this new technology. I agree with Clark that humans are “primed” to use tools or technology, especially if we think of tools in a broader sense than just electronics; however I am not sure if that predisposition will translate into the kind of future he described in his hypothetical diary. He implies that our integration with machines is a natural process but to me it seems that if new technologies are developed that integrate body with tools those with more money, power, and connections will have access to these new technologies. Isn’t it possible that these new technologies could create a further divide between haves and have nots?
![tnarine's picture tnarine's picture](/exchange//files/images/SerendipStudioAvatar.png)
Introduction
Hi, my name is Tapashi and I am a sophomore at Bryn Mawr. I am a math major but I have a ton of other interests as well which I'm trying to incorporate during my time at Bryn Mawr. I love chocolate. I tend to be random at times.
![tangerines's picture tangerines's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-831.gif)
Post 2: Cyborgs' Attitudes of Gender
Part of our discussion this week centered on the nature versus nurture debate, and whether humans are, as Clark claims, “primed to seek … nonbiological [sic] resources” (6). I agree that we are easily able to adopt and adapt to new technologies and survival aids; in other words, “primed” to use tools that suit our needs. As our needs change and grow more complex, so do our tools. However, I take issue with Clark's claim because it reflects only one part of human nature (however one decides to define “human”).
![ekthorp's picture ekthorp's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-866.jpg)
Yeah for Glasses Wearers!
I’ve had glasses since 4th grade. When you have something on your face for that long, it becomes part of your physical appearance. You stop seeing the glasses in the mirror and just see your face. When I wear contacts, I feel like my face looks puffy and deformed- like there is something missing. And in a sense, there is. My glasses are a part of me- I define myself as a “glasses-wearer.” When people meet me, I wonder if they look at me and prominently see the glasses. Do the glasses eventually fade into my face for other people like they do to me? Or do people always see my glasses and me as separate entities?