Writing and Digital Literacy.
Phoebe G. Lifton
Writing and Digital Literacy
Response paper
Response to the question: Is Google Making Us Stupid?
Without coming to any rash decisions that include only in an affirmative, “yes”, or a rash “no”, to this question, I will consider an article by Nicholas Carr published in The Atlantic magazine about how our brains and behavior is being affected by technology and the use of the internet. He concludes that as we come to rely on computers to understand the world around us we lose the ability to do this on our own. I would like to consider this possibility without condemning it to quickly.
I think humans tend to be skeptical about change and automatically reject it at first. I am a victim of this and experience it most intensely after the, ‘honeymoon’, stage of culture shock. But as Nicholas Carr points out in the article there are positives and negatives to every change, including the way we think. I believe there are some things we are losing while gaining other tools, a slow evolution is happening.
I believe that biologically our brains have been adapting to a new way of thinking based on the invention of the Internet. The brain is smart, and most importantly it is easily affected, sensitive to anything it comes in contact with. The brain is just a giant muscle and functions in this manner. Naturally when you do something a certain way over and over again your brain can more easily retain that activity based on the repetition practiced. Just like when you are practicing a sport you have to go through the same motions over and over again for the body to learn and memorize the moves, the brain learns in the same way.
The picture below is the isolated areas of activity in the brain while reading a book (left) and on the internet (right). This shows that while on the Internet we use a lot more different parts of the brain then while reading. Does this mean it takes more work for the brain to use the internet, is it over stimulated? It looks like the brain is more concentrated when it is reading only using core parts. Is it better to be working the brain more or to be concentrated on less? I don’t have an answer.
Writing and Digital Literacy
Response paper
Response to the question: Is Google Making Us Stupid?
Without coming to any rash decisions that include only in an affirmative, “yes”, or a rash “no”, to this question, I will consider an article by Nicholas Carr published in The Atlantic magazine about how our brains and behavior is being affected by technology and the use of the internet. He concludes that as we come to rely on computers to understand the world around us we lose the ability to do this on our own. I would like to consider this possibility without condemning it to quickly.
I think humans tend to be skeptical about change and automatically reject it at first. I am a victim of this and experience it most intensely after the, ‘honeymoon’, stage of culture shock. But as Nicholas Carr points out in the article there are positives and negatives to every change, including the way we think. I believe there are some things we are losing while gaining other tools, a slow evolution is happening.
I believe that biologically our brains have been adapting to a new way of thinking based on the invention of the Internet. The brain is smart, and most importantly it is easily affected, sensitive to anything it comes in contact with. The brain is just a giant muscle and functions in this manner. Naturally when you do something a certain way over and over again your brain can more easily retain that activity based on the repetition practiced. Just like when you are practicing a sport you have to go through the same motions over and over again for the body to learn and memorize the moves, the brain learns in the same way.
The picture below is the isolated areas of activity in the brain while reading a book (left) and on the internet (right). This shows that while on the Internet we use a lot more different parts of the brain then while reading. Does this mean it takes more work for the brain to use the internet, is it over stimulated? It looks like the brain is more concentrated when it is reading only using core parts. Is it better to be working the brain more or to be concentrated on less? I don’t have an answer.
What I do know is that I see change happening and so does Nicholas in the article he notes about himself that, “what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles.” The future of paperback has been in jeopardy since the invention of the internet. I already miss the feeling of holding a book, opening it up and smelling the paper. There’s such a satisfaction that comes from turning each crisp page until it’s the last one. At risk here is the possible loss of the art that goes into a book. Pressing buttons is so much easier that it becomes less rewarding. Something changes when I read on the internet; I turn into a lazy reader skimming most long pieces of writing. Nicholas Carr describes a similar loss explaining how he feels his brain has been slowly changing through the increased time he spends on the internet. He says the evidence is most obvious in his reading performance, “The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.”
It is also discussed in Nicholas’s article that not just how we read but the tools we use affect our brains and writing content. He gives an example of how philosopher Nietzsche’s writing changed based on switching from handwriting to using a typewriter. Nietzsche said about that the change that, “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.” Our brains are even affected by what we use to access and perform it. I made a similar observation in my own writing experience, in the academic and creative form.
For the final writing of a poem or essay I use the computer and type it up. I prefer to do my research using the internet, mainly because you can be very specific in your search. Books take longer to find relevant information you are looking for, the computer as a system does it for you making it so much easier. Also my brain is so unorganized that when I handwrite something it comes out in small fragments. On a computer I can see all the pieces right in front of me and all I have to do is rearrange them by copying and pasting the segments into a cohesive form. In this way I can effectively make my writing a concise flow of ideas in a reasonable amount of time. What’s becoming valued over anything else these days, is speediness and convenience.
I am a product of this new generation of technology. My generation has to negotiate the fast changes that come with technology. Courtney Martin defines best where my generation and I are at right now in a short quote I heard from a TED talk she gave about the term ‘feminism’ in for my generation. It best describes my age group that I can see also represented in the picture shown at the beginning of this essay, she says, “Our generation is not apathetic, but overwhelmed”.
It is also discussed in Nicholas’s article that not just how we read but the tools we use affect our brains and writing content. He gives an example of how philosopher Nietzsche’s writing changed based on switching from handwriting to using a typewriter. Nietzsche said about that the change that, “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.” Our brains are even affected by what we use to access and perform it. I made a similar observation in my own writing experience, in the academic and creative form.
For the final writing of a poem or essay I use the computer and type it up. I prefer to do my research using the internet, mainly because you can be very specific in your search. Books take longer to find relevant information you are looking for, the computer as a system does it for you making it so much easier. Also my brain is so unorganized that when I handwrite something it comes out in small fragments. On a computer I can see all the pieces right in front of me and all I have to do is rearrange them by copying and pasting the segments into a cohesive form. In this way I can effectively make my writing a concise flow of ideas in a reasonable amount of time. What’s becoming valued over anything else these days, is speediness and convenience.
I am a product of this new generation of technology. My generation has to negotiate the fast changes that come with technology. Courtney Martin defines best where my generation and I are at right now in a short quote I heard from a TED talk she gave about the term ‘feminism’ in for my generation. It best describes my age group that I can see also represented in the picture shown at the beginning of this essay, she says, “Our generation is not apathetic, but overwhelmed”.
Phoebe G. Lifton
Electronic Portfolio
Free Market assignment
Does the free market corrode moral character?
To the contrary
It depends
Yes, but…
No.
Of course it does
No! And, well, yes.
Certainly. Or does it?
Yes, too often
No, on balance
We’d rather not know
Not at all
It all depends
No.
These are the collective intellectual answers from those economists, writers, philosophers and politicians who wrote in on this question to the New York Times in my own creative poetic form.
I decided to combine of two prompts Dr. Cheriyan gave us in class. The first was to write an essay about procrastination. How I justify my procrastination when writing papers is by writing poems, so I wrote a poem shown above about the topic we were given. Here are my elaborated thoughts on the question, “Does the free market corrode moral character?”, based on the New York Times online forum asking the same question.
One of the forums commenter’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali ‘s short answer is, “Not at all”, and goes on to talk about systems in general and how the individuals within them run it. She says, as do many others, that the socialist system, “is excessive and counterproductive; it discourages innovation and rewards dependency, corroding moral fiber and individual responsibility by encouraging people to become lazy and dependent on the state for things they could (and should) do for themselves.” I think socialism is not what the government just hands us, its what we work for, for each other. So that everyone is working together to get the same benefits as the other. It’s a system that handles the promise to equally distribute work to all its participants and in return they will all (rightly) receive the same benefits as the other. European nations like the Netherlands who are run on socialism statistically have some of the happiest people on the planet according to the happy planet index and other studies done. They are also the leaders in sustainable innovations right now.
Ayaan Ali defends the free market and the way it’s handled business’s reactions to the environmental damage its caused. She says that now companies are becoming “greener” because the general costumer moral has changed on these issues. But I think her discussion lacks focus on the real issue when it comes to the environment. She says companies changed their behavior, “Corporations and firms do this because they are rational economic actors. Companies that are greener may actually make more profits than those that ignore environmental morality.” The environmental crisis today should not be focused around who makes more money off of the problem; it should be about fixing it. The green revolution only came to the corporate world when they could benefit financially from it not when it was a question of moral. Take the electric car for example that was modeled and suppose to be on the market years ago but other car companies bought it fearful it would they would make less money. If it was more affordable and available to live, “green”, part of our oil dependency problem could have been fixed a lot sooner.
America has lost its trust in a fair and just government, especially its leaders. And socialism, like all systems, requires an exceptional leader and active participants that strive to uphold the ideal. In Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s opening words she comments that, “freedom of the individual is the highest aim, and the ultimate test of a person’s character is his ability to pursue his own chosen goals in life without infringing upon the freedom of others to pursue their own goals.” I believe the free market system and the belief stated above cannot comply with each other.
In a socialist government everyone has to play fairly and receive equally. I wonder, is it better for people to not have the moral freedom to even choose to be corrupt? For example, in the argument given by Ali I think we have our current system because it allows us to ignore –what we like to do- so that we can have the opportunity to be wealthy beyond anyone’s means. And the only way this person or selective few can reach this point in wealth is at the expense of the extremely poor. I do think socialism is one extreme of government, and if I could choose my own system of government it would be a mixture. A system that prevents even the opportunity to corrode morally but still has the freedom for competition and economic growth.
Electronic Portfolio
Free Market assignment
Does the free market corrode moral character?
To the contrary
It depends
Yes, but…
No.
Of course it does
No! And, well, yes.
Certainly. Or does it?
Yes, too often
No, on balance
We’d rather not know
Not at all
It all depends
No.
These are the collective intellectual answers from those economists, writers, philosophers and politicians who wrote in on this question to the New York Times in my own creative poetic form.
I decided to combine of two prompts Dr. Cheriyan gave us in class. The first was to write an essay about procrastination. How I justify my procrastination when writing papers is by writing poems, so I wrote a poem shown above about the topic we were given. Here are my elaborated thoughts on the question, “Does the free market corrode moral character?”, based on the New York Times online forum asking the same question.
One of the forums commenter’s Ayaan Hirsi Ali ‘s short answer is, “Not at all”, and goes on to talk about systems in general and how the individuals within them run it. She says, as do many others, that the socialist system, “is excessive and counterproductive; it discourages innovation and rewards dependency, corroding moral fiber and individual responsibility by encouraging people to become lazy and dependent on the state for things they could (and should) do for themselves.” I think socialism is not what the government just hands us, its what we work for, for each other. So that everyone is working together to get the same benefits as the other. It’s a system that handles the promise to equally distribute work to all its participants and in return they will all (rightly) receive the same benefits as the other. European nations like the Netherlands who are run on socialism statistically have some of the happiest people on the planet according to the happy planet index and other studies done. They are also the leaders in sustainable innovations right now.
Ayaan Ali defends the free market and the way it’s handled business’s reactions to the environmental damage its caused. She says that now companies are becoming “greener” because the general costumer moral has changed on these issues. But I think her discussion lacks focus on the real issue when it comes to the environment. She says companies changed their behavior, “Corporations and firms do this because they are rational economic actors. Companies that are greener may actually make more profits than those that ignore environmental morality.” The environmental crisis today should not be focused around who makes more money off of the problem; it should be about fixing it. The green revolution only came to the corporate world when they could benefit financially from it not when it was a question of moral. Take the electric car for example that was modeled and suppose to be on the market years ago but other car companies bought it fearful it would they would make less money. If it was more affordable and available to live, “green”, part of our oil dependency problem could have been fixed a lot sooner.
America has lost its trust in a fair and just government, especially its leaders. And socialism, like all systems, requires an exceptional leader and active participants that strive to uphold the ideal. In Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s opening words she comments that, “freedom of the individual is the highest aim, and the ultimate test of a person’s character is his ability to pursue his own chosen goals in life without infringing upon the freedom of others to pursue their own goals.” I believe the free market system and the belief stated above cannot comply with each other.
In a socialist government everyone has to play fairly and receive equally. I wonder, is it better for people to not have the moral freedom to even choose to be corrupt? For example, in the argument given by Ali I think we have our current system because it allows us to ignore –what we like to do- so that we can have the opportunity to be wealthy beyond anyone’s means. And the only way this person or selective few can reach this point in wealth is at the expense of the extremely poor. I do think socialism is one extreme of government, and if I could choose my own system of government it would be a mixture. A system that prevents even the opportunity to corrode morally but still has the freedom for competition and economic growth.
