Comments on: Discover Magazine video of moi

By: Nathan D

Nathan D — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:36:23 +0000

Did they refuse to use lower-case letters for your name, or was that inadvertent?

By: zephoria

zephoria — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:35:17 +0000

::shudder:: But it feels negative to me. I get really weirded out seeing myself on video. I can’t watch it – it’s like being forced to sit through someone scraping fingernails down a blackboard. I know many like me in video, but it really makes me squeamish.

I’m a creature of text.

By: Branedy

Branedy — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:12:50 +0000

Not to be too unprofessional, but you need to refine your definition of ‘strange’ there are movie stars that would love to look as good and appear as animated in an interview, as you do in this one. Maybe pick a different word to describe it, like maybe, well, you would know better than I. Maybe less negative in this connotation next time.

By: Mike C

Mike C — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:35:57 +0000

boooorinG!

Friendster, now there was a REAL social networking machine.

By: Neil Kandalgaonkar

Neil Kandalgaonkar — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:35:27 +0000

Everyone looks weird to themselves. You looked great. I think it was a good overview of the themes you’re writing about.

As for the other guy… they cut to him for edits, so that every time you come to a good point, he gets distracted by peanuts. Kind of drove me crazy.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:11:29 +0000

“Strange”? Only this frozen shot; you’re not Dr Evil in disguise, are you? Although it’s the first time I’ve stared at you after the eye surgery but your face holds up (i.e. without the glasses).

Why is the interview in bar anyway? Sure it’s not really a date and you’re pulling a Silverman/Kimmel stunt? I was hoping for some slurred speech and drunk quotes but they’d edit that out I guess. You can clearly see the cuts (including one aside with your empty glass). Did you get multiple takes or was it one long semi-informal chat?

Not much to say about your actual points: I’ve already read them in your papers and blog and I agree with your research. You’re really good at explaining, and summarizing too, especially if that was a first time delivery. Ideally it’ll encourage people to read more of your high quality work. Slightly disconcerting (and amusing) to see your video, on that website, next to “Suicide Soothsayer A blood test could reveal who has suicide hiding in their genes” …

By: Steve Borsch

Steve Borsch — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:40:53 +0000

Agree with Dav…you came across very well. Even though it was clear you were in a side or back room with lights and what was at least a two-camera shoot. Pretty tough to be natural in that setting so don’t kick your dog.

What I enjoyed was the subtleties and nuances you gave.

For example, the “jocks and burnouts” vs. Facebook and MySpace was so perfect and the characterization of shades of gray is reality.

By: Jeffrey McManus

Jeffrey McManus — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:47:56 +0000

Oh purdy!

By: Dav

Dav — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:47:21 +0000

You look great!

I’m wondering, and I know this is perverse, but are you aware of any social networks specifically for younger children that aren’t just branding fronts? I’m imagining something they could use to share scanned artwork with their friends, or make collaborative videos. I seem to recall that most of the SNs I know of have minimum age requirements of 13 or so.

By: John Markos O'Neill

John Markos O'Neill — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:31:32 +0000

I thought you gave an excellent presentation about your research. Thanks for posting it.