W12 : What is "quality" for our societies? / 박소민(SOMIN PARK)

 Can we think of some examples of things that once were considered high quality but today are not? And vice versa - what is not seen as high quality but once wasn't?

In society, we can evaluate the "quality" of everything and the reputation of those things has always changed slightly. Even a roadside stone allows us to evaluate quality. Now you might rate it useless and of low quality. But the stone could have been a very good hunting or gathering item a long time ago, in the Neolithic period. The same is true of DVDs and CDs. In the past, it may have been a high-quality entertainment product, such as watching videos and listening to music through them, but now people don't use them very well because their value has changed.  

In conclusion, as in the example above, quality in our society is ubiquitous and always changing. Because value judgements about everything are always different, so are the reviews of the quality of things.

Discussion point

What do you think is the least difference in quality compared to the past and present?

Comments

  1. 이영실May 22, 2021 at 5:51 AM

    Oh! I read your opinion well. It was very interesting 😊 Well, I personally don't think there's a qualitative difference compared to the past and the present. Of course, our lives have become more convenient because our society is always developing in a better way. However, I think that sometimes people in the past were happier than the present. Therefore, it depends on the 'criteria' of evaluating the quality of the past and present, so it is hard to say that the quality of the past and present is different.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lee ye han (이예한)May 22, 2021 at 6:15 AM

    I read it interestingly. I agree that the quality and reputation of evaluation in society change with the times. In addition, the standards for evaluating 'quality' seem to change rapidly because services and products are becoming more advanced. In my opinion, the convenience and quality of life have increased universally due to technological development. I think this will vary by individual criteria!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Park Chan Young (박찬영)May 22, 2021 at 8:08 AM

    As you said, the criteria for evaluating quality are different in the past and present. Therefore, I think that while relative differences can occur, absolutely nothing can be good or bad. Because I also like analog things, modern convenience and speed are sometimes too much, and rather reduce my satisfaction in life.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W10 : Can we think of some example of how Internet has changed our culture? / 박소민(SOMIN PARK)

 1. Summary  The Internet has changed our culture so much. First, through the Internet, we can meet people regardless of distance. People in each country communicated over the Internet and reduced the barriers to distance by creating relationships. Also, the Internet has let us stay away from books. When we want to find expertise, we can get it from Wikipedia or Google. Even information in books can be obtained through e-books, reducing access to libraries and paper books. 2. Interesting point Further to the above, our brains are gradually degenerating because we don't have to remember information. We are constantly interrupted by SNS notifications ringing on our phones when we do something, so our concentration and attention are being reduced. Furthermore, the ease of obtaining information online is causing our short-term memory to decline. 3. Discussion point I think the Internet has made it easy to sever a relationship with a person because we can meet another person simply...
Read more

W7: Review of Good Faith Collaboration / Suyoung Han

  Review of Good Faith Collaboration 1) Summary – Wikipedia from an ethnographic perspective: focusing on collaboration within the community Wikipedia, which is called the world's largest encyclopedia, is an open community and is becoming more and more solid with the participation of various people, conflict, and resolution. In this respect, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. attempted to explain the culture that takes place within Wikipedia. The book describes how Wikipedia was created and what it values. In particular, he described Wikipedia in a book from an ethnographic point of view, and focused on cooperation within the community. 2) Interesting Point – Wikipedia is simple, but not I realized that Wikipedia is not just a site made up of community activities, but rather a collaborative activity that is carried out concretely for the goal. Before I read the book, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia site that only gave me information (even I didn't trust the information), and I thought ...
Read more

w9: Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? LiuXinlei

 Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? In terms of the comprehensiveness of the content, we have to admit the advantages of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia is undoubtedly my first choice when I don't understand an event at all. It is convenient, fast and comprehensive, and I can spend the least time to understand the whole content of this fact as comprehensively and neutrally as possible. But in the process of in-depth learning, Wikipedia can only be used as an introductory content, because in learning we need to understand this fact as much as possible, and we need to understand the different views of scholars in different regions on the same event. There will be different theories. Some theories seem to be not neutral or even discriminatory or ethnographic at present (such as Marxism and Marxism in China), and it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Be shown. In short, Wikipedia has a very low threshold for users. It assu...
Read more