One of the biggest myths about Millennials is that they are all digital natives, blogging and tweeting their way through life. The truth is a bit more nuanced.

True, Millennials are some of the most avid USERS of mobile and Internet technology.

The age of first cell phone is dropping rapidly and now stands at about 9 or 10. Currently nearly six of every ten 12-year olds have their own cell phone, a figure that increases to 83% by age 17. On average, 75% of all 13-17 year olds have a mobile phone, 93% go online (76% with broadband), and 80% have a console gaming device (Pew Research).

It’s also true that Millennials rely heavily on digital media to manage their daily life activities, stay informed and stave off boredom.

Digital media so pervades their lives, they cannot imagine living without it. Digital content and communication literally enables their social lives. Some even refer to this dependency as ’addiction’.

A new study conducted at the University of Maryland asked 200 college students to give up digital media for 24 hours and write about the experience. The students’ journals, which amounted to the equivalent of a 400-page novel, were full of stories of deprivation and emotional angst. “We noticed that what they wrote at length about was how they hated losing their personal connections. Going without media meant, in their world, going without their friends and family.”

“I clearly am addicted and the dependency is sickening,” said one person in the study. “I feel like most people these days are in a similar situation, for between having a Blackberry, a laptop, a television, and an iPod, people have become unable to shed their media skin.”

“Texting and IM-ing my friends gives me a constant feeling of comfort,” wrote one student. “When I did not have those two luxuries, I felt quite alone and secluded from my life. Although I go to a school with thousands of students, the fact that I was not able to communicate with anyone via technology was almost unbearable.”

One student said he realized that he suddenly “had less information than everyone else, whether it be news, class information, scores, or what happened on Family Guy.”

The Maryland researchers concluded that “most college students are not just unwilling, but functionally unable to be without their media links to the world….Without digital ties, students feel unconnected even to those who are close by.”

Given this level of dependency, it follows that Millennials are adept at manipulating and adapting technology to their needs. However, this is not the case, at least for the majority of Gen Y.

The top six web sites by volume according to Experian’s Hitwise service are pretty mainstream: 1. Facebook 2. Google 3. Myspace 4. Yahoo 5. Yahoo Mail 6. Youtube. Although my students are adept at Facebook, and finding information, music and videos online, few make use of Twitter or maintain a blog. This is in line with statistics by Forrester, which shows only half of 18-24 year olds are what they classify as ’creators’. Few students make use of RSS feeds, wikispaces or other productivity enhancing tools.

A 2007 study by Northwestern professor, Hargittai on web use among so-called ‘digital natives’ reached the conclusion that there is a wide range of web use and skill levels among young adults. Over 1000 college freshman were surveyed on the frequency and diversity of their web use as well as indexed for skill on 27 variables. The study found a range of skill and use and concluded, ”web-use skill is not randomly distributed among a group of young adults who have grown up with digital media.” While some of the diversity could be explained via socio-economic status and ethnicity, much could be attributed to what the authors called ‘context of use’, which included the number of years online, the time spent online, access to a laptop and more. ”Overall, these findings suggest that familiarity with the medium is very much related to how people use the Internet and user savvy mediates some of the otherwise observed relationships of user background and online activities.”

A recent article in The Economist also questioned the assumption that all Gen Y’ers are Internet-savvy (“The Net Generation Unplugged”, March 2010).

“Michael Wesch, who pioneered the use of new media in his cultural anthropology classes at Kansas State University, is also sceptical, saying that many of his incoming students have only a superficial familiarity with the digital tools that they use regularly, especially when it comes to the tools’ social and political potential. Only a small fraction of students may count as true digital natives, in other words. The rest are no better or worse at using technology than the rest of the population.”

The article goes on to point out that according to Pew Research, “internet users aged 18-24 were the least likely of all age groups to e-mail a public official or make an online political donation. But when it came to using the web to share political news or join political causes on social networks, they were far ahead of everyone else. Rather than genuinely being more politically engaged, they may simply wish to broadcast their activism to their peers.”

For marketers, this diversity of use is a caution not to confuse digital dependency with digital savviness. Not all Millennials will be jumping up and down to respond to your latest crowd-sourced campaign, app or contest.

Many of the popular digital marketing tactics require a level of involvement and expertise may be beyond the skills of many Gen Y members on the far side of the digital divide. Far safer, and more broadly appealing, are approaches where the call to action is easy and intuitive, requiring nothing more than a working knowledge of how to use XBox, text messages, Facebook or Youtube.

*Carol Phillips is the president and founder of the brand strategy consulting firm “Brand Amplitude.” She is also a Professor at the prestigious University of Notre Dame. Carol began her career as a market researcher and strategic planner at Leo Burnett. Later, as an Account Director, she led agency teams at four different agencies – Y&R, Leo Burnett, Mullen and JWT – for a variety of clients including Sprint, Nextel, Ameritech, Heinz, 7UP, and Philip Morris. She blogs at www.millennialmarketing.com.

By Ines Schinazi

Technology is obviously changing the way we speak, communicate, interact, and relate to each other. But is technology also changing our brains? Dr. Gary Small thinks so. Of course, the brain’s extreme plasticity is nothing new. But the overwhelming flood of technology in nearly ever aspect of our lives is.

Technology has greatly contributed to making Dr. Gary Small’s research possible. In many ways, technology has sparked his thinking.

He explains, “It was really in my personal life, noticing these technologies, that I felt I wanted to understand it more… I was struck how they’re have been so few direct studies of brain function while our brains are using these new technologies.”

Of course, without technology, Dr. Small’s elaborate research wouldn’t be possible at all.

While technology propels us forward, permitting someone like Dr. Small to explore these questions, it also paradoxically holds us back.

Through his research Dr. Small also reveals the widening “brain gap” occurring between “digital natives” and “digital immigrants,” thus affecting the family, the workplace, and society at large.

Dr. Small is a world- renowned expert on memory, aging, and the brain. He is currently the director of the UCLA “Memory & Aging Research Center at the Semel Insitute for Neuroscience & Human Behavior.” His latest book is the cleverly titled “iBrain.”

His extremely innovative research has made the headlines of “The New York Times,” “The Wall Street Journal,” and “USA today” among other publications. “Scientific American” magazine has named him one of the world’s top innovators in Science and Technology.

His recent UCLA study titled “Your Brain on Google” makes us wonder if our own brains are under the Google influence. In an exclusive interview, Dr. Small shares some of his thoughts.

Ines: Could you talk about the “Your Brain on Google” study you did at UCLA?
Dr. Small: We wanted to see what the brain looked like the first time it searched online. To do that, we had to find [older] people that were “naïve” to the Internet. That was probably the hardest part of the study. So we found these people, and matched them up with people who had Internet-search experience.

We put them in a functional MRI scanner, where we can measure brain function from moment to moment.

We simulated Internet searching and reading a book in the scanner. We found that when the Internet savvy people searched online there was a greater than two-fold increase in activation throughout the brain. We thought that that had to do with the neural networks knowing how to search online and showing greater activation.

We also have found, and are presenting this next month, that if you take these “Internet Naïve” people and have them search online for just an hour a day during a week or two, that their brains look identical to somebody who has been searching online for years. It tells us that an older brain really can adapt quite quickly.

Ines: You are considered one of the world’s top experts on memory, aging, and the brain. Specifically, how did you start exploring the connection between digital technology and the brain? What sparked the interest?
Dr. Small: My work has been primarily in Alzheimer’s disease, in memory, and in how the brain ages. I’ve spent much of career developing technology on how to measure the brain, like PET scan techniques, and so forth.

And it struck me in the past few years that all the technology that we are developing, which improves our lives, may also have an effect on the brain. It was really in my personal life, noticing these technologies, that I felt that I wanted to understand it more.

That’s why I wrote the book “iBrain.” During the course of writing “iBrain,” we did this study at UCLA called “Your Brain on Google.” Because I was struck how they’re have been so few direct studies of brain function while our brains are using these new technologies.

Ines: Your research reveals the wide disparity between digital natives and digital immigrants, which you call the “Brain Gap.” How do you perceive this brain gap affecting the family?
Dr. Small: I think it definitely affects the family. I can see that in my own family. The younger people, the young teenagers, are using technology more, they’re better at, but they’re not spending time face-to-face with human contact.

We have a rule at our house that there’s no technology during dinnertime. Yet it’s a strange situation. The other day, I said to my son, “Stop playing that video game, and come watch television with me!”

It speaks to my concern about the repeated use of technology, and not socializing. It’s a moving target. It’s a complex topic, and I don’t have all the answers. In writing “iBrain” I was hoping to generate some discussion, raise some questions, and get people to study it more…

Ines: How does the brain gap affect the workplace, as digital natives and digital immigrants must now collaborate to accomplish the same tasks?
Dr. Small: In the workplace, when people have to adapt, they do. An example is my father, who was already in his 80’s, and was still working. He wouldn’t use a computer at all. But when they changed to an electronic filing system at the office, he was forced to use a computer, and he adapted quite readily.

I think some older people will have advantages because of the “face-to-face contact” [skills]. Yet younger people will have advantages because of the technology skills in the workplace. The people, who excel the most, are those who can master both approaches.

Ines: What are the steps we can take to minimize the “brain gap” in the workplace and in the family?
Dr. Small: I think they need to first become aware of the issues, and have discussions. I think the way to bridge the gap, is to upgrade the tech skills of the older generation, and help young people, with their human contact face-to-face skills.

Ines: There’s always a great deal of discussion about the “left” and “right” sides of the brain, which determine people’s natural aptitudes.

Do you think technology-use, is comparable to other skills like Art, Math, and Literature? Do some people have more of a natural aptitude or talent? Or are people’s technological skills directly proportionate to their technology-exposure?
Dr. Small: That’s a complex question. We haven’t studied it directly. My sense is that this is something that some of us are better at innately. But it’s also something that can be learned. So it’s not just one or the other. The brain is quite plastic, and does respond well to these kinds of exposure. We found in our study “Your Brain on Google” that an older brain really adapts quite quickly.

Ines: You find that digital natives often lack basic “people skills,” such as reading facial expressions, or feeling empathy. In the future, are digital natives at risk of losing their “people skills” all together?
Dr. Small: Yes. That is an issue. People see it anecdotally all the time. Young people are not showing eye contact when they’re having a conversation. They really can’t read non-verbal cues when they are having a conversation. So I think this is a risk, and that’s one reason I try to heighten people’s attention to it.

Ines: We live in the world of the iPod, the iPhone, the iMac, and now the “iBrain.” How did you come up with the creative title for your latest book?
Dr. Small: I have to credit our editor, Mary-Ellen O’Neill. It was a very good idea. It’s a terrific title. The book is about the brain, and the effect of new technology on the brain.

So, you were just doing a play on words with “iBrain, iPhone, etc.” [In regards to the meaning of the “I”] you could say it stands for “intelligent” or “interactive.” It’s interesting because in the study “Your Brain on Google” we found the frontal lobe was particularly activated, and that’s the interactive part of the brain. So searching online is quite interactive. You’re making lots of decisions. You’re going back and forth. It really engages neural circuits in the frontal lobe of the brain.

Ines: Your research insists on the positive aspects of internet-use. You find that the Internet helps develop important skills like multi-tasking, complex reasoning, and decision making, in both the young and the aging. That said the effects are only positive if people use technology responsibly, not giving into its addictive nature.

We know that Internet addiction is a growing problem all over the world, as there have recently been a lot of rehab centers opening up to treat this problem. Are the brains of addicts wired differently?
Dr. Small: We do know that some people have a predisposition for addiction. So they’re brain wiring may be a bit different, and there may be some genetic determining of that.

But I think all of us have the capacity to become addicted to things. It depends on the amount of exposure, the situation, and a lot of different factors. I think that just like with any condition, there’s a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

You find that people that get addicted to technology are often the same people that have a tendency to get addicted to alcohol, drugs, and food. It’s the same dopamine reward system. The primitive systems of the brain drive these addictions. We talk about this to some extent in “I Brain.”

Ines: What are your suggestions for avoiding the addiction problem as a society?
Dr. Small: I think there’s a lot of controversy about it. Not so much in Asia, and in some other countries. But in the U.S. the American Psychiatric Association hasn’t decided yet that there is such a thing. I think there is, and I think we should take it seriously and try to help people.

Ines: What are your thoughts on popular social networks like Facebook and Twitter? Are they good for the brain?
Dr. Small: I think like anything they can be good. But when overdone they can be negative. I’ve talked to a lot of schools, and a lot of kids, who are spending a lot of time on Facebook.

A negative is that they’re losing their face-to-face communication skills. But they’re getting good at their “Facebook-to-Facebook” skills.

You know, it’s marvelous how we can network with this. But I think that we need to use it in moderation, and not overdue it. I always recommend a balance, that you spend time offline, to balance the online time.

Ines: And these social network sites seem particularly addictive…
Dr. Small: Yeah, anyone who has been involved with [social networking sites], really sees the draw. For me, it’s not Facebook, but I have so much business on e-mail that it’s hard for me to get off my e-mail. It’s helpful. But too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. I think you have to have a balance and know when to use the electronic communication and when to use the old-style communication.

Ines: Much of your research works towards helping the old stay as young as possible. Your research is an effort towards reconciling good health with old age.

However, do you think that some of the enormous attraction to this type of research comes from our society’s general fear of aging?
Dr. Small: Yes. We want to stay young. We want to stay healthy. There’s certainly an emphasis on youth.

What we’re learning from science is that we have more control than we think. Genetics only accounts for part of what determines how well and how long we live. So we’re trying to help people understand that, and figure out when they can do today to live better and longer.

Ines: We know that with the excessive use of technology, individuals are developing more “virtual ties” and “virtual relationships” than “real life” ones.

Is the trend of virtual relationships also a product of the changing brain? Or does it say more about our society and socialization in general?
Dr. Small: I think it speaks to how enticing all these things are. I love technology. It’s really tremendous. I think that it’s something that can really enhance our lives, and it does.

But I think it’s “sneaked up” on us so quickly, we haven’t thought about the positives and the negatives. That’s what “iBrain” is about. To try and put it in balance, and think about it intelligently, to enhance our lives, to control the technology, to make things better rather than the other way around.

Ines: A study affirms that women are inherently better at multi-tasking because ever since ancient times, while their husbands were out hunting, they sustained the family, by multitasking. This same historical context also caused men to be better at focusing on a single task at a time.

In your opinion, how will the digital age, with its constant multi-tasking, impact future generations and their gender roles?
Dr. Small: I think there’s a kind of “narrowing” of the gender divide as a result of this.

Interestingly men seem to get into the technology earlier, but now there’s not so much of a divide.

But there are some differences in terms of “use patterns,” going back to evolutionary development, defining the roles of men and women, where men were the hunters, and women the nurturers.

That’s interesting, the thought of multi-tasking, and women being better at it. I think there’s some truth to that. I find I can focus on a single task, whereas my wife has a little bit harder time doing that, and will notice other things going on.

I think all bets are off with the technology today. We’re seeing fewer differences between men and women.

By Rachel Glickhouse

I “met” Eline Kullock through a social networking site. She asked me to write a guest post for the blog. I found Eline to be extremely interesting, intelligent, and a hard worker (she is the President of Grupo Foco in Sao Paulo). So here I am, “guest blogging…”
People like to talk about the differences between generations. They constantly speak about generation gaps, and the cultural differences that separate different generations, including: The Baby Boomers (born after WWII), Gen X (born from 1960-1982), Generation Y (born from 1982-1986), and Gen Z (born in 1996…).
Still, the question remains, are these generation gaps different in Brazil and in the United States?

Technology
The United States has a large middle and upper middle class. So, Americans have access to relatively low prices when it comes to technology. This makes it possible for all generations to stay up to date in regards to new technologies.
Of course, technology is directly related to fashion and style. Everybody wants to have the coolest, smartest, latest, gadget (I phone, W. ii and TiVo for example).
In general, most of the population, from the Baby Boomers to Generation Z is technologically savy. They have constant access to computers and to the Internet. Since the technological revolution is very recent, it has changed everything very quickly. This forces us to constantly be learning and trying new tools and products.

In Brazil, it’s a different story. In the past 5 years, the middle class has grown considerably, allowing access to technology to become much more widespread. Washing machines, DVDs, and personal computers, are now a bit more commonplace than they were 5 years ago.
Previously technology-use, was limited and exclusive, to an elite segment of the population. However, now as salaries increase, and social consciousness grows, through politics and social awareness programs, most individuals have access to technology, or at least to the Internet.
However, within the new middle class, those who benefit the most from these changes are Generations Y and Z, leaving Baby Boomers and Gen X behind.
Just as before, older generations belonging to the middle and high classes are extremely tech savy.
In contrast, the older adults belonging to the new middle class are still struggling with the learning process, particularly when it comes to using the Internet and computer programs. Orkut has been a very useful tool. Through Orkut, these new users have started to understand how to use the Internet, and upload photos and videos.

The Job Market
I believe that the job market is currently very different in both countries.
In the United States, we are dealing with the worst Economic crisis since the Great Depression. Yes, we have one of the strongest economies, and are one of the most powerful countries in the world. However, the impact of this crisis is not just financial. It’s emotional as well. Americans’ self-esteem is extremely low and the general environment is not optimistic (especially since the honeymoon phase with Obama has passed.)
All generations are suffering in this job market, especially with the cutbacks happening in every industry.
But the generation that is suffering the most is Generation Y. Generation Y has entered the job market at a very difficult moment.
Since the 1960s there have been tremendous changes in the job market. People have been able to try new careers (especially women). There’s also been a technological revolution that created many new jobs (IT for instance).
This has allowed people to work in different fields, and not simply limit themselves to the traditional professions of: dentist, accountant, doctor, lawyer etc.
As a result, Generation Y is being forced to differentiate themselves even more. They have to set themselves apart with a distinct image and professional profile, as well as a differentiated set of skills.
Since there are currently many more potential employees than open positions, this is a secure moment to enter a “traditional profession” like Medicine, Engineering, etc. Obviously, these professions require extremely specialized knowledge. Therefore, people are going back to school.

In Brazil it’s not like this. The Baby Boomers and Generation X have suffered from economic instability, military dictatorship, and hyperinflation, which results in a very low self-esteem (which Eline writes about). Until recently, with economic growth and stability, unemployment rates were high, and it was difficult to penetrate the job market.
In Universities, students focused on “practical” and “traditional” careers. There wasn’t a great desire for creativity, unless that also came with a lot of money.
However this is also changing. Gen Y and Gen X are gaining access to a larger job market, which is more fluid and open. These generations have much more flexibility in regards to the career they choose. They also have more freedom to choose their career path. Innovative professions born out of the technological revolution, now have an important presence in Brazil. Gen Y’s self esteem is much higher than that of the Baby Boomers or Gen X, when they were of the same age.

Cultural Values
In the United States our collective history is schizophrenic and our historic memory is very short. We try to live in the moment. We focus on the present, instead of learning lessons from our past. This is how we’ve lived through three horrible wars.
Each generation does preserve its historical moments. Still, what gets valued the most, is “the now.” A subtle cultural pressure exists, telling us to keep the past in the past. We observe this in history books, and in black and white films.
Baby Boomers and Gen X have a desire to become part of Generation Y. They constantly “show off” their knowledge of the present, and adhere to new values.
The shift in cultural values is shared by all generations. For example, the majority of Americans want to prohibit smoking in public places. Also, many more people are starting to fight for gay rights.
In Brazil, collective history is much stronger. Young people remember the 1950 World Cup. They enjoy listening to old music like Gilberto Gil. Of course they also remember the dictatorship, Vargus, and colonialism.
Brazilian society is similar to a family. It has collective roots, and a valued history. However, I also feel that cultural values are slowly changing with each generation. Generation Y is more progressive. However, values take longer to change here than in the United States. This is also probably largely due to the fact that young people have much more respect for their parents and grandparents than in the United States.
In the U.S. it’s acceptable and perhaps even implicitly encouraged to reject your parents’ values. In Brazil, it’s completely unacceptable.
Despite advances in technology, like texts and e-mail, people still prefer to communicate on the phone or face-to-face.
Although there is fast food available, and workers are stressed at work, Brazilians still prefer to take their lunch hour, usually with their coworkers.
Of course, Gen Y in Brazil shares many cultural values with Gen Y in the states. But the traditional values, those passed on from other generations, are also important, and even sacred.

Visit: Adventures of a Gringa

Google Maps helps me reach my destination.

I put together a nostalgic photo album on Flickr.

I call to my sister, who has locked herself in her room, while chatting on MSN.

I share news through messages that contain a lot of exclamations (revealing my state of extreme happiness or sometimes expressing my indignation.)

I ask for a book recommendation, and compare prices, without getting up from my chair.

I invite friends to a happy hour through Twitter.

I wish my friends happy birthday through Facebook.

I watch my favorite TV shows on youtube.

Thank God, I haven’t yet reached the point of participating in one of those “online wakes.”

Still, to some extent, it feels that everything I do in my real life happens in the virtual.  This mix transforms our reality, creating two environments.

I NEED to meet people who have read the book to know if it’s worth reading.  I NEED to remember birthdays in some way.  I NEED so many things that the virtual world provides me with, and yet also reminds me that I need to know the limit between the real and the virtual.

I am liberal, open to new things and technologies, and a member of generation Y.  However, I am still very much a part of a larger society.   =)

Mauro Segura
I remember a few years ago, during management training, an instructor asked each of us to bring in an image that had spoken to us in adolescence and still remained present in our mind today.
Most people brought in pictures of their family, of their first boyfriend or girlfriend, of their dog, or even a class photo. I was the only person who brought in the image of the first man on the moon.

I was exactly 9 years old when Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. It felt like a dream. I remember watching the moon, trying to catch a glimpse of Armstrong’s shadow. I spent a good part of my childhood wanting to be an astronaut. I was fascinated by astronomy, and knew all about the colors of the planets, Saturn’s moons, and the names of the galaxies.

It didn’t even cross my mind that the “space race” wasn’t just about ideals and challenges. Of course, it was also a product of the conflict between the Americans and Soviets.

The world was fighting the cold war, and my mind was stuck on the moon. My interest in the subject was awakened when the USSR sent the first living thing to space in 1957.

I imagined Laika, the first dog in space, as beautiful, as she entered the space ship excited and full of happiness. I imagined her returning from space joyful, as she reunited with her owner.

It was only decades later that I realized that Laika, was sent to space by the soviets to die. She embarked on a voyage of no return. She was a martyr and didn’t even know it.

Today, the whole race to the moon, truly pinpoints a time in my life when I was dreaming. I dreamed of a different world. I dreamed of a distant future. I dreamed of the almost unattainable. Once I became an adult, reality set in. Still, I kept the image of the moon, in the back of my mind.

This July, man setting foot on the moon, has come back to me. The medias are celebrating 40 years since man conquered the moon. The image of the footprint came back full speed, through newspapers, TV, and the web. It made me dream again. It made me dream much less than in my childhood, but it still took me away.

I get the impression that today’s youth dreams little. Perhaps they are less idealistic. Perhaps they are a bit sadder. When we dream, our future seems closer and concrete. The future becomes almost palpable.

Today, the world moves with such intense speed, and an abundance of connectivity and easy access to information. We don’t know how to disconnect from reality. When we start to dream, we are constantly distracted by a text or by twitter. There is a strong pull pushing us back to reality. In today’s world, it wouldn’t take decades to know that Laika was destined to die. We all would have known in mere minutes.

During my childhood, I would play in open fields, in squares, and in parks. I met my friends there, and we would talk about life. It was always the same group of kids. We played soccer with a flat ball and old, worn out, sneakers. Traveling was a special treat, and almost always unforgettable.

Today’s childhood overflows with technology. Social networks are the fields today. We speak to a huge number of people we barely know. Often time, we call them friends after only a few hours of virtual contact. Our children ”play” online.

As far as traveling goes, we travel almost everyday through the Internet. We are constantly discovering the unknown online. In a sense, the world has really lost its borders.

I’m not arguing that this new world is better or worse than the world in the past. I think we currently live in a more democratic environment, which is much more conscious of its challenges. Yet, upon seeing the image of the man on the moon, it’s impossible not to feel that the world does dream a little less.

I look around, and realize how much new technologies are slowly but surely, invading schools and Universities.

My son studies “Engineering and Production” at the University “UFRJ.” His Economics Professor Maura Montella, asked her class to complete a project, in which the finished product would be a video about the black market.

Her class divided into small groups and every group created a video. That was their group project. It took them a whole Sunday to complete, and it looked very different and cool. More than just Economics, their Professor challenged them in the realm of creativity.

My son’s project was very creative. His group really wanted to do something different. They used digital photography, MP3s, and Legos (which I had given my son as a gift many years ago).

The other class videos can be seen by searching for Maura Montella on youtube.

New technologies give us new tools for creativity. In my generation, we worked on our group projects at somebody’s house. We used books. The material we presentedwould end up being more or less pieces of construction paper, with images and texts (either hand written or printed), glued on to the pages.

The final product was pretty, with a little flower glued at the right hand of the construction paper. Who remembers construction paper? Does it still exist? Yeah it does! I’ve seen a school, with my own eyes, which still uses it! Though I must admit, it does seem they are clinging on to it, and resisting change.

During Bernard’s project, the groupbrainstormed,via social networks, instant message chats, and cellphones.

Their idea was created through all this “virtual speak.”They came up with the general idea of their project this way. When they got together, I saw how much fun they had, while filming.

In the end, although decades separate us, both generations (Baby Boomers and Gen Y) are doing the same thing. We talk, glue images, and get creative. The only thing that’s really changed is the construction paper…

Inês Schinazi

New York City. Underground morning rush, headphones glued to every pair of earlobes in sight. Stuck waiting for the next train. It’s like a silent film, except this time the live music plays in our heads. It can be whatever we want it to be. Personalized soundtrack. While we imagine the inner dialogue, the comic strip, popping, behind the other’s mute stare. Hard to get into it. Push comes to shove.

Finally inside the train, we all exist in our own space. Busy interacting with our own “machine,” ( MP3 players, blackberries, I Phones, digital newspapers,) so isolated while smashed up against what feels like ten million sweaty bodies. Paradox. Stuck together, and yet very much split apart.

How do we define “social interaction?” These days, the bulk of our “social interactions” take place through e-mails, texts, and social networking sites. We have many more virtual social interactions than face-to-face ones. Even when planning for the “face-to-face” we rely on the virtual (text, e-mail, facebook, and maybe the phone) probably spending much more time eyeing machines than each other.

Facebook asks “What’s on your mind?” Asking for a superficial x-ray or scan of our heads. Most of us give it to up. Eyeballing somebody’s profile, there’s no need for interaction when you can literally read somebody’s mind, or at least read what they want to share. No need to ask how people are. No desire to dig deeper. Time efficient. Too clean. A breed of thought lies there, almost too easy to catch, it’s static and raw.

Cyber space reminds me of jammed subway cars. We are all connected and stuck together through Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, etc. It’s literally possible to know exactly what people are doing, thinking, and feeling. Yet, despite all this apparent “connectedness,” individuals have probably never been so distant. After all, most social interaction means talking to machines.

In “Summer in the City,” Regina Spektor sings, “Summer in the city, I’m so lonely, lonely, lonely, so I went to a protest just to rub up against strangers….” No matter how much technology evolves and progresses, I don’t think the seemingly primitive need for “physical rubbing up” will ever disappear.