July 2007 — News
Print this article | Email this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Second Life: Do You Need One? (Part 3)
VB: The frequent technical "hiccups" are, in my opinion, the No. 1 limitation of SL at this point. And with the natural skepticism of most traditional educators to this technology, these recurring "burps" make it all the harder for many of them to take SL seriously. With the tight calendars and budgets of all educators, there is a real hesitance to invest significantly of either time or money when we experience times that we cannot even access our "stuff."
I believe those technical issues are common to any major shift in practice such as the one virtual world technology brings upon us. A machine that is appropriate today isn't tomorrow. Each upgrade of the software weakens the performance of the hardware. This is the same experience we had in the early days of the traditional Internet. It is just the reality of the change we are experiencing. Unfortunately, it creates an experience in which only those capable of keeping up with the technology changes can continue to participate. Fortunately, the process leads to something much bigger than our current technology or mindsets can handle at this point.
Economically, my greatest concern is the potential for a "crackdown" by the powers and practices of the real world. While I agree that any illegal activities must be addressed immediately, the discussions of taxation and other controls are a concern. As mentioned above, if we impose our traditional practices upon this environment too quickly, simply because we "think" something might be going on here, it will limit the potential of the environment for real change.
Socially, we have a lot of work to do to understand the real impact of the real/virtual experience. It is true that many people are facing profound disruption of their [real world] lives due to experiences in the virtual environment. Unfortunately, I now see there is a movement to declare a new category in DSM-IV to cover an "addiction" to digital games and virtual worlds. While I am sure there are unhealthy experiences taking place, the reaction is more of one to "define" and "control" a new cultural experience, rather than to explore and understand it. [Note: DSM-IV, "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders," is the official manual for all things abnormal in the psych world....]
Second Life suffers from the cultural brand of being seen as a "game." This is the true definition of a digital divide in the 21st century. One part of our culture grew up with games as something secondary, something that is appropriate to engage in after the real work is done ... maybe. Another part of our culture has grown up using games to learn their ABCs, math skills, as simulated experiences to learn high-level skills, as a primary means of communication, and as an acceptable and meaningful element of their daily lives. While the non-game group still controls the "politic" of the day, the game-based group is destined to outlive them. The division will become bloodier before it improves.
