Oh My God! I'm in love with my computer...

Do you equate computer usage with real life? Do you react politely to your computer and expect it to react politely to you? Do you get emotionally saddened when your computer dies and you have to replace it?

In The Media Equation by Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass, the authors assert that this is indeed the case; we, as humans, treat media like reality. I agree with Reeves and Nass, in particular with their reasoning about how and why we react to media. While consciously we are aware that media are not real, our subconscious mind (which has developed for almost 200,000 years) recognizes that media (TV, Computer, Internet, Smartphone, etc) as real. The authors go on to say how this aided human survival, however, in their words, it's an “old brain” involved with “new media.”

In June of 2010, my parents rewarded me for my hard work at school with a laptop for college. However, it's not just any laptop, it's a MacBook Pro. My computer (on which I am currently composing) and I have shared a lot of experiences throughout my college life. The thought of possibly losing my computer is horrifying to me because of this. While I still have a backup of all of my files on an external hard drive, I believe that losing this computer would be emotionally scarring, akin to that of losing a pet. In this way, I suppose I anthropomorphize my computer, even though Reeves and Nass say that we don't anthropomorphize.

However, in spite of my conclusion that most of what Reeves and Nass assert is true, I do find some of their findings a little bit hard to swallow. They claim that a computer needs to have quantity in what it says in order to be polite and to have the most understanding with the user. However, I would find a menu composed of paragraphs, rather than single words, the most annoying thing on the face of the planet. Maybe this is only because of my personal connection with my computer, but I consider the interaction between myself and my computer to be similar to two technicians who can speak briefly in highly technical language and still understand each other.

In summation, I believe that Reeves and Nass' assertion proves true (for the most part).


(384 words)