Karen Spears - Manifesto

Karen's Manifesto Part 1

Normative Statement 1:

Humans should not text while driving.

I think that people should be able to dedicate their attention to the road while driving. I understand that we have distractions already, such as people in the car or loud music, but I think that texting is something that we do not NEED to do while the car is in motion. I would even be willing to compromise- the person could text while the car is stopped at a red light, but NOT while the car is moving. But even then, I feel that the light could change, the person slows down the rate of traffic only because they had to respond to that “really important” text. I think that texting is even worse than calling; the person is not even able to look at the road because they are too busy reading on their phones. People have enough distractions on the road as it is, as I stated before. I think that this is a easy thing to change about humanity- people do not need to see their phones all the time, every minute. Some implications: they might miss that update on their best friend’s break up! They might avoid an accident! The only serious implication could possibly be if they miss a text from a friend who is in serious danger- but then, why didn’t the friend call?

  • Why the reader should take it seriously for possible inclusion in the collective manifesto:

According the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, “drivers who use hand-held devices are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves.” According to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s distracted driver website, [http://www.distraction.gov/stats-and-facts/] “a 2009 survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveals an increase in the use of electronic devices while driving and some regional differences in this practice.” Although soon we may be able to text while riding in Google’s automatically controlled cars according to Farhad Manjoo, I think that for now, our eyes should be on the road, not on a phone.

Normative Statement 2:

The amount of time a person spends on Facebook ought to be less than the amount of time a person spends interacting with people in real life.

I think that people should be able to communicate verbally with humans in real life. Communication is a skill that we will need in any job, or for any interview, unless we all decide to be hermits. Talking in person gives both people undivided attention, also, they can understand the nuances of English. I adopted this normative statement because I think that people are becoming lazier in their friendships, and are putting in less effort- they write a short wall post rather than having a longer phone call. I understand everyone is busy in college, but I think that devoting a good portion of your time to communicating with people in real life is a good way to spend one’s life. Some Implications: The person might end up learning something new from a person they communicate with, they might develop their social skills, or they might gain a new friendship. Also, they might not be so focused on their small network of Facebook friends, but might talk with different new friends in real life. People might not get the benefits of having a person at “arm’s length” via Facebook.

  • Why the reader should take it seriously for possible inclusion in the collective manifesto:

According to Slate editor Libby Copeland, Stanford’s psychology department believes that Facebook is the “Anti-Social” network. I think that it is important that we try to make friends with people in close proximity to us, even if they aren't your best friends in California- you might learn something new from a person you meet in real life or are friends with in real life. Although online facebook chat friends can be helpful to talk to, they might not be the type of friend who helps take care of you when you're sick or takes you out to coffee (or hot chocolate) when you're feeling bad.

Normative Statement 3:

While socializing with a friend or at the dinner table with family (in real life), a person should not use a cell phone, iPad, or other electronic device to communicate with a person who is not present.

I get very irritated when a person has a cell phone on the table when we are having a meal together. I know that the individual probably does want to spend time with me; however, the message that I receive from this kind of behavior is that the person wants to be somewhere else. I think that this behavior should be removed as a norm in society; we need to pay more attention in the present to those around us. Some Implications: Someone might miss some critical information about their social life in the small window of time that they are sharing with me. They might give the person they are talking to their full attention, and seem more respectful!

  • Why the reader should take it seriously for possible inclusion in the collective manifesto:

On the more extreme end, according to “the Retrevo Gagetology Report (a survey of 1,000 people in their 20s). Among those under 25, 22 percent say they would send a text message during a meeting, 49 percent during a meal, 24 percent on the toilet, and 10 percent during sex.” Yikes! I found another article about a woman who sent a text right after her father walked her down the aisle. The New York Times agrees, you can play with your food, but no texting!

Normative Statement 4:

Companies should not use vast technological databases to sort through resumes and to determine whether a candidate is qualified for a job.

I understand that hundreds of people are probably applying to big companies every day. However, I don’t think that people should be “weeded out” by a computer. I think that although I might not have experience with a Fortune 500 company or haven’t worked with Robohelp before, I think that a human might find some redeeming qualities about me from reviewing my resume. I don’t think a program should determine who is or isn’t qualified for a job. I would rather have to wait longer to hear back from a company and have a human review my resume/CV than a computer program. Some implications: We might have actual people review our qualifications for a job. Companies might have to pay more for more people to review people’s resumes. We might not get reviewed or called back as quickly because it is slower for a human to review a person’s resume/CV.

  • Why the reader should take it seriously for possible inclusion in the collective manifesto:

Ron Holifield, CEO of Strategic Government Resources, in Keller, Texas comments that companies that use automated job application systems are “turning hiring into making sausage, instead of making intelligent decisions.” And I agree. I’m sure that databases “speed up the process” by searching for keywords on your CV and resume- but how can a program determine your writing style in your CV, or evaluate your ability by scanning your resume? Although recruiters can be biased, and automated job processing systems put you on a “level playing field”, I think that human contact is invaluable- and having a person review your qualifications rather than a machine is something that is important. One GREAT place apparently to look for jobs is USA Jobs, because they have real people review a printed out version of your resume. For now, make sure you have the right keywords on your resume, or you won’t get that dream job!


Normative Statement 5:

A person should always have the option of talking to a human when calling a business’s customer service.

Explanation: I think that people should always have the option of talking to a real person. No matter what. I think that it is poor customer service to have a person wait 2 hours to go through customer service computerized phone calls rather than just deal with a real person. I understand that a person might be just as incompetent or even more so than a computer program, but I just prefer to talk to a person to deal with my customer service issues. I understand that big companies save money by not having to hire as many people to answer phones but I think that allowing a person to talk to another person is good customer service. Some implications: I suppose companies would have to pay to hire and train more people to answer customer service phones. Society would be able to talk to real humans on the other end rather than having to go through 8 different transfers of computer programs.

  • Why the reader should take it seriously for possible inclusion in the collective manifesto:

I think that it is sad that we have to deal with automated robot programs on the phone, and can’t get a hold of a real human. Therefore, I am sharing this unique source: http://www.dialahuman.com/ This is how you get a hold of humans through big companies’ customer service systems. According to Time magazine editor Brad Tuttle, “the companies that employ living breathing customer service reps to answer phones also tend to have shorter wait times for callers”.

Read more: [http://moneyland.time.com/2011/08/25/customer-service-done-right-when-an-actual-human-being-answers-the-phone/#ixzz1dM8jNVUt]

Normative Statement 6:

People should have the option to pay for a free service, such as Gmail, to be able to restrict the sharing of their personal information with advertising marketers.

So my big issue with Gmail is that we should be able to pay for the service of Gmail and not allow anyone to have our information. I understand that computers just scan our emails for keywords, but still, I don’t understand why anyone or anything has the right to look through my emails, period. I don’t think that my personal content should be up for sale for advertisers to use! I would love to pay for the service of Gmail so that I could have my privacy. I don’t want to have ads, that’s it. Some implications: Google might lose some funding from advertisers by allowing people to not have targeted ads. It would be complicated for Google to determine who pays and who doesn’t to make sure that your information isn’t scanned. People might not like to pay for a free service, and might be ok with the fact that their personal information is sold to advertisers, and therefore might refuse to pay for a service.

  • Why the reader should take it seriously for possible inclusion in the collective manifesto:

According to google, “When you sign up for a Google Account, we ask you for personal information. We may combine the information you submit under your account with information from other Google services or third parties in order to provide you with a better experience and to improve the quality of our services.” Who are the third parties? I think we should be concerned that Google passes on our information to people who “provide us with a better experience” Also Google claims that “when you access Google services via a browser, application or other client our servers automatically record certain information. These server logs may include information such as your web request, your interaction with a service, Internet Protocol address, browser type, browser language, the date and time of your request and one or more cookies that may uniquely identify your browser or your account.” Why does Google does this? Why do they need to collect our information? Also remember, what you create on Google, stays on google: “Because of the way we maintain certain services, after you delete your information, residual copies may take a period of time before they are deleted from our active servers and may remain in our backup systems.” Why are we allowing this? Shouldn’t we be able to pay so that our information isn’t collected?

Read more: [http://www.google.com/privacy/privacy-policy.html]