Questions:
1. Weinberger brings to question the dangers that the internet may be
contributing to controlled diversity. On the contrary, solidarity is not
necessarily an undesirable concept within our nation. In that context,
how might the internet positively be affecting people's opportunities to
the rising of solidarity?
2. The implementation of "moderators" within internet forums is talked
about in the passage as people who arbitrate certain regulations within a
community of people. How can this relate to figures in our society who
hold this kind of power?
3. Does narrowing down the criteria for what "diversity" means in the
context of solving problems defeat the purpose of the definition of the
word? How can this relate to democracy?
Response to question 1:
Regardless of my stand on the passage, I feel that Weinberger doesn't
address the rise of solidarity that the internet has allowed for. Of
course, the collective goal is that of "fairness." The whole point of
utilizing diversity to resolve issues to accommodate the needs and
feelings of as many people as possible, but this looks different on a
macroscopic level. Isn't the nation as a whole an "echo chamber" in
relation to the rest of the world? Had diversity allowed for the
absolute democratization of conflict resolution, we would not have the
extensive and intricate issues with foreign policy that we deal with
today?
What I'm seeing is a perspective that clings to objectivity as much as
possible. Every individual nation is essentially an echo chamber in
relation to the rest of the world. This is the problem Weinberger sees,
however, his view is on a smaller scale within society. If this danger
that the internet is creating group polarization were to be resolved,
then we would have the skills to resolve any world debate and, thus,
live in harmony with a common ground between every sovereign body.
The internet is merely allowing for us to see this on a smaller scale
because of its ability eliminate the problem of distance between people.
If anything, the internet has done nothing to create more group
polarization. Rather, the internet is just revealing to us how much it
already exists; it just acts as the facilitator.
Looking at the matter from a different point of view, we can see that
the internet has allowed for more solidarity. It makes sense that, the
more and more diverse a group becomes, the less likely it is to find a
common ground. The tendency to surround yourself with ideas that conform
to your own is almost innate. The internet has provided for us to
capitalize on something we are already conditioned to do. If Weinberger
had seen this as a good thing, he might have said that the internet is
allowing for more like minds to collaborate for a unified cause that
could not otherwise have occurred. On the contrary, all things are good
in moderation. Weinberger sees this as something that needs to happen,
but puts to question how much. Solidarity is good to an extent. But what
does that even mean? Who decides what ideas are opportune for
conglomeration?
Its quite possible that the only thing diversity has done for nation is
make more evident the fallacies of democracy. Maybe we have pushed far
enough to the boundaries of democracy to find that human nature will be
its downfall. Democracy implies fairness, but we all know that life
isn't fair. That is simply because not everyone can be happy at the same
time. This issue will never be resolved. Democracy and diversity has
sort of revealed to us the notion that in order to attain absolute
fairness, we kind of have to all want the same thing, thus, making it
self-defeating.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
Response to Carr Article
Questions:
1. Supposing the exponential progression of technology is "making us stupid," what might be the dangers and repercussions associated with this crisis. What might the undesirable consequence look like?
2. Nicholas Carr touches on the idea that thought processes can be influenced by the method of writing used to communicate information. How might this be applied to the today's modern use of touch screen phones, tablets and iPads?
3. Regardless of the small rebuttal that Carr implements toward the end of the article that implies the possibility that the internet may produce positive enhancements in the way humans think, he seems to have an idea that the internet's effect on us is a degradation of intelligence. Does the fact that we may be thinking differently mean our intelligence is changing? Is there a "correct" way to be thinking?
Response: Question 2
Carr sheds light on an interesting idea that deals with how our states of mind can be influenced by the methods by which information is received. Before applying this to modern day technology, a trip in the opposite direction may help to grasp the weight of this notion.
Although Carr was not being entirely outlandish, it might have helped more to have included Lacanian theory to fortify his argument. It's interesting to note that this idea of how reading and writing effects our thought processes dates back 10,000 years ago to early days of mankind. Jacques Lacan introduces this theory that the concept of language itself has ultimately transformed and dictated the way humans think from the day they're born. Because language cannot wholesomely facilitate what we think and feel, we accept the fact that certain things just can't be explained using words, therefore, limits are created around our interpretation of information. In addition, we understand concepts predominantly through the languages we understand them with which ultimately confines our psyche to the restraints that that language has. What can be gathered from this is that Carr fails to argue that not only can writing down information have an effect in reducing our intelligence, but our intelligence, by default, is not operating at it's optimized capacity.
The most perplexing part about this is that we have gone from thinking, to speaking, to writing, to reading, to typing, to tapping. This past semester showed me the degree by which the iPad and tablet is being utilized. One of my classmates wrote his entire 17 page research paper using the "notes" application of his iPad. So, does Neitzche's experience in his change of prose have a parallel occurrence in this situation? What makes me think the most is how different my friend's essay might have been had he typed it on a word processor, let alone wrote it by hand.
Typing a command into an electronic device forces us to mentally review the concept of the command simultaneously as it is being processed electronically. The iPad now allows us to push, through a flat screen, a button that "represents" the command we wish to enter. For example, spacing our words in a sentence when handwriting is, by far, much different then pressing the space bar on a keyboard. The space is intended to allow for smooth comprehension when reading; however, the sequence of thought that goes into pressing the space bar might be a lot different than pressing a button that represents a button that represents the spacing of words. Technology's addition of convenience in this case is clear, but the effects on our brains isn't.
The alphabet itself is also something to ponder. Letters that represent sounds that combine to form different sounds are seen visually. My point is that purely conceptual information created solely by humans has been "systematized." Obviously this is an easily understood idea. There isn't anything too farfetched about it until you change perspective. What needs to be understood is how many mediums this information, like the alphabet, goes through before it is received by us. What began as a sound that symbolized a fragmented thought is now a picture on a keyboard. The reason this relates to Carr's idea is that technology is creating conveniences that don't only make physical activities easier, but even make neurological automatic responses to stimuli unnecessary. I honestly believe that before writing existed, speaking these words without seeing how they are spelled in my mind would dramatically alter the way I interpret or understand what I am saying.
I feel that there is much speculation to be had on the matter. I don't doubt that Carr is onto something more accurate than assumed at first glance. What causes skepticism, however, is that Carr is proposing theories about the way an organ in our body is affected when this particular organ isn't even fully understood. The mind and brain are the final frontiers of science next to space. Biology and physiology can be taught and understood quite in depth but psychology and neurology remain heated disciplines among academics. The sad truth is, we might live to see the detrimental premonitions that Carr has before we can even begin to fully conceive the intricacies of the human mind.
1. Supposing the exponential progression of technology is "making us stupid," what might be the dangers and repercussions associated with this crisis. What might the undesirable consequence look like?
2. Nicholas Carr touches on the idea that thought processes can be influenced by the method of writing used to communicate information. How might this be applied to the today's modern use of touch screen phones, tablets and iPads?
3. Regardless of the small rebuttal that Carr implements toward the end of the article that implies the possibility that the internet may produce positive enhancements in the way humans think, he seems to have an idea that the internet's effect on us is a degradation of intelligence. Does the fact that we may be thinking differently mean our intelligence is changing? Is there a "correct" way to be thinking?
Response: Question 2
Carr sheds light on an interesting idea that deals with how our states of mind can be influenced by the methods by which information is received. Before applying this to modern day technology, a trip in the opposite direction may help to grasp the weight of this notion.
Although Carr was not being entirely outlandish, it might have helped more to have included Lacanian theory to fortify his argument. It's interesting to note that this idea of how reading and writing effects our thought processes dates back 10,000 years ago to early days of mankind. Jacques Lacan introduces this theory that the concept of language itself has ultimately transformed and dictated the way humans think from the day they're born. Because language cannot wholesomely facilitate what we think and feel, we accept the fact that certain things just can't be explained using words, therefore, limits are created around our interpretation of information. In addition, we understand concepts predominantly through the languages we understand them with which ultimately confines our psyche to the restraints that that language has. What can be gathered from this is that Carr fails to argue that not only can writing down information have an effect in reducing our intelligence, but our intelligence, by default, is not operating at it's optimized capacity.
The most perplexing part about this is that we have gone from thinking, to speaking, to writing, to reading, to typing, to tapping. This past semester showed me the degree by which the iPad and tablet is being utilized. One of my classmates wrote his entire 17 page research paper using the "notes" application of his iPad. So, does Neitzche's experience in his change of prose have a parallel occurrence in this situation? What makes me think the most is how different my friend's essay might have been had he typed it on a word processor, let alone wrote it by hand.
Typing a command into an electronic device forces us to mentally review the concept of the command simultaneously as it is being processed electronically. The iPad now allows us to push, through a flat screen, a button that "represents" the command we wish to enter. For example, spacing our words in a sentence when handwriting is, by far, much different then pressing the space bar on a keyboard. The space is intended to allow for smooth comprehension when reading; however, the sequence of thought that goes into pressing the space bar might be a lot different than pressing a button that represents a button that represents the spacing of words. Technology's addition of convenience in this case is clear, but the effects on our brains isn't.
The alphabet itself is also something to ponder. Letters that represent sounds that combine to form different sounds are seen visually. My point is that purely conceptual information created solely by humans has been "systematized." Obviously this is an easily understood idea. There isn't anything too farfetched about it until you change perspective. What needs to be understood is how many mediums this information, like the alphabet, goes through before it is received by us. What began as a sound that symbolized a fragmented thought is now a picture on a keyboard. The reason this relates to Carr's idea is that technology is creating conveniences that don't only make physical activities easier, but even make neurological automatic responses to stimuli unnecessary. I honestly believe that before writing existed, speaking these words without seeing how they are spelled in my mind would dramatically alter the way I interpret or understand what I am saying.
I feel that there is much speculation to be had on the matter. I don't doubt that Carr is onto something more accurate than assumed at first glance. What causes skepticism, however, is that Carr is proposing theories about the way an organ in our body is affected when this particular organ isn't even fully understood. The mind and brain are the final frontiers of science next to space. Biology and physiology can be taught and understood quite in depth but psychology and neurology remain heated disciplines among academics. The sad truth is, we might live to see the detrimental premonitions that Carr has before we can even begin to fully conceive the intricacies of the human mind.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)