Estimated reading time: 1 minute, 58 seconds

Authenticity and emotion seem to fit in here. Both Rebecca and me followed a patient engagement presentation given by Stanford Medical and independently identified a kind of falsehood to the “caring” messages. First was the Silicone Valley Breathless future’ism in the developer’s purposes and then their hiring of an actor to represent the patient-in-distress sample client / user. Stripped of authentic emotional character and given a script, the whole show had the flavour of a carnival shill.

Who would want these people to help you in a crisis? All the “interaction” is at the surface, mediated and I think it’s fair to say, no deeper than exchanging superficially pleasing sounds with each other.

To get to the “truth” we need to go deeper to identity and identifiable personal markers. But to avoid unwanted exposure we need to disguise the responder in some way–to make them generic enough to be anyone. Except now, we’ve lost their authenticity….

Found this by accident:
IRESILIENCE OF SCIENCE PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS THROUGH DIGITAL STORYTELLING
HERE>http://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET
TO HERE>http://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/1699
TO FULL TEXT>http://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/1699/1330
The aim of this qualitative research was to investigate how a group of science pre-service teachers created digital stories to elicit resiliency (risk and protective factors) during their teaching practicum and how their peers responded to the digital stories, uploaded and shared onVoiceThread. The results showed that the digital stories were able to convey thinking and emotions successfully at a deeper level.