Luke Buehrer
English 101
Dr. Amy Amendt-Raduege
Discovery Draft
May 6, 2010
Art is a great mode of thought and analysis. Art has the capacity to spark emotion, provoke thought, and stir the imagination. A black and white picture can show the world in a new light, one that may be seen as simpler or gloomy. While an abstract can lead to all sorts of interesting conclusions. The Persistence of Memory, by Salvador Dali is Surrealistic painting; it is an oil canvas painting that was painted in 1931. The Persistence of Memory is a very famous painting that still takes people into thought and wonder. The simple shapes and unusual objects such as the melting clocks, the dead tree, or the abstract face really make it unique. After looking at it for some time, many ideas of its meaning and propose come to mind. Maybe it the distorted clocks could mean that time distorts depending on certain influences such as emotion. It could be revolving around dreams and their impacts, or even other meanings.
Thinking about the idea that time can distort purely based on emotion made me think to times in my life. School was one of the worst areas for this to occur. Somehow ten minutes of hearing my biology teacher talk could feel like hours. But when I get out of school and go bike or hang out with some friends hours turn to minutes. In the painting there is a sagging clock that is on the branch of the dead tree. The tree may represent death, or bad times. And the long distorted clock could represent time being lengthened or slowed. I know for me when something bad happens like crashing on a bike time instantly slows down. Why must the bad times appear longer than the good ones? There is one clock, which is undistorted, and the only one where the numbers and hands are not visible; also, it is much more extravagant than any other clock. I found this interesting; what could Dali be trying to say by painting this? Possibly that in better times (the extravagant decorations) time may almost become irrelevant. I know that when I have no set plans and just go out to have fun, I later realize I have no idea what time it is. Or maybe that if people were to ignore time, put less on their plates to live simpler their lives may become more rich and fulfilling. With all the new technologies the world is becoming a smaller and faster place every day. With high demands at work, and a need for success, stress is an almost certain side effect. Dali may be trying to convey that a slower life style where relationships and passions outweigh the constant push for the latest and greatest may lead to a satisfying life. And that wealth isn’t measured by your possessions, rather your satisfaction in life. Even though time is for the most part constant (light being the only true constant), our perceptions of time can be fairly unstable.
Another idea that came up after looking at this painting was the unconscious. The abstract face appears to be a woman with her eyes closed, possibly asleep. On top of the face is a clock that covers the face like a blanket. What could he be saying here? He might be trying to say that time can also distort during sleep. There are several ways it could do so. First, time could speed up or slow down the way it does in the conscience. During happy dreams time may appear fast, and during nightmares or dreams of bad memories time could slow. There are no limits to dreams, they can distort time be taking you to the distant past of your childhood, or sometimes even combine times of your life together. Could the land Dali painted be the dream of the abstract face? Maybe the face represents Dali, in a dream. If that’s the case, I wonder why he made the land so bleak and simple. The abstract face is in the darkest part of the painting, and the brightest part is the furthest away. Dali may have been going through hard times when he drew this painting. He could have been trying to show how he feels a long ways away from where he wants to be in life, or that he feels depressed and sees no way out. Dreams are abstract occurrences; this surreal painting may just be making sense of them.
The title of the painting really made me think. While looking at the painting before I know what the title was I never thought too much about memory. By seeing how Dali thought it was a fitting title I needed to look in a little deeper. The Persistence of Memory is interesting by its self. Why would Dali call memory persistent? This seems apparent, wherever you go memory will be with you. Could it be that Dali has memories that keep nagging at him, to the point it is annoying? I honestly can’t see why he chose this title, but I still like it. The only connection to memory I see is through time. The distorted clocks could be representing how time distorts when looking back at memories. With memories you have the ability to warp back to any time in you life instantly. This can make life appear short. If you have lived seventy years but are able to look sum up the main event of your life in a few minutes, appear much shorter than you thought. This idea made me think how every year seems shorter. As a child, summer break felt like a lifetime, but now its gone before I even got used to the idea. Pink Floyd a band of the late sixties and seventies sing about this in their song “Time”,“…you are young and life is long and there is time to kill today. And then one day you find ten years have got behind you, No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun. And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking. Racing around to come up behind you again. The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older, shorter of breath and one day closer to death. Every year is getting shorter; never seem to find the time. Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines. Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way, the time is gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say” (Pink Floyd). They Sum up my idea very well here; the idea of time seeming shorter every year. I wonder why this occurs, is it when your younger life is more exciting because you have experienced little making days seem longer. And as you age you get into a routine and the days seem less exciting and just seem to fly by. Our perception of time is very easily altered based on our feelings and age.
Time can be distorted quite easily when in the presence of memory, as well your age. This painting has made me think a lot about time and how it can be so easily altered by perception. Although I doubt that this is what the painting means, I would rather think about the painting and it mean then just going on-line and looking up what it means. If you just find the meaning without looking for it, there may be no meaning at all.
Works Cited
Floyd, Pink. “Time.” Dark Side of the Moon. London: Abby Road Studios, 1973.
Dali, Salvador. “The Persistence of Memory.” 1931. Oil on Canvas.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Discovery #2
Luke Buehrer
English 101
Dr. Amy Amendt-Raduege
Discovery Draft
May 6, 2010
Art is a great mode of thought and analysis. Art has the capacity to spark emotion, provoke thought, and stir the imagination. A black and white picture can show the world in a new light, one that may be seen as simpler or gloomy. While an abstract can lead to all sorts of interesting conclusions. The Persistence of Memory, by Salvador Dali is Surrealistic painting; it is a oil canvas painting that was painted in 1931. The Persistence of Memory is a very famous painting that still takes people into thought and wonder. The simple shapes and unusual objects such as the melting clocks, the dead tree, or the abstract face really make it unique. After looking at it for some time, many ideas of its meaning and propose come to mind. Maybe it the distorted clocks could mean that time distorts depending on certain influences such as emotion. It could be revolving around dreams and their impacts, or even other meanings.
Thinking about the idea that time can distort purely based on emotion made me think to times in my life. School was one of the worst areas for this to occur. Somehow ten minutes of hearing my biology teacher talk could feel like hours. But when I get out of school and go bike or hang out with some friends hours turn to minutes. In the painting there is a sagging clock that is on the branch of the dead tree. The tree may represent death, or bad times. And the long distorted clock could represent time being lengthened or slowed. I know for me when something bad happens like crashing on a bike time instantly slows down. Why must the bad times appear longer than the good ones? There is one clock, which is undistorted, and the only one where the numbers and hands are not visible; also, it is much more extravagant than any other clock. I found this interesting; what could Dali be trying to say by painting this? Possibly that in better times (the extravagant decorations) time may almost become irrelevant. I know that when I have no set plans and just go out to have fun, I later realize I have no idea what time it is. Or maybe that if people were to ignore time, put less on their plates to live simpler their lives may become more rich and fulfilling. With all the new technologies the world is becoming a smaller and faster place every day. With high demands at work, and a need for success, stress is an almost certain side effect. Dali may be trying to convey that a slower life style where relationships and passions outweigh the constant push for the latest and greatest may lead to a satisfying life. And that wealth isn’t measured by your possessions, rather your satisfaction in life. Even though time is for the most part constant (light being the only true constant), our perceptions of time can be fairly unstable.
Another idea that came up after looking at this painting was the unconscious. The abstract face appears to be a woman with her eyes closed, possibly asleep. On top of the face is a clock that covers the face like a blanket. What could he be saying here? He might be trying to say that time can also distort during sleep. There are several ways it could do so. First, time could speed up or slow down the way it does in the conscience. During happy dreams time may appear fast, and during nightmares or dreams of bad memories time could slow. There are no limits to dreams, they can distort time be taking you to the distant past of your childhood, or sometimes even combine times of your life together. Could the land Dali painted be the dream of the abstract face? Maybe the face represents Dali, in a dream. If that’s the case, I wonder why he made the land so bleak and simple. The abstract face is in the darkest part of the painting, and the brightest part is the furthest away. Dali may have been going through hard times when he drew this painting. He could have been trying to show how he feels a long ways away from where he wants to be in life, or that he feels depressed and sees no way out. Dreams are abstract occurrences, this surreal painting may just be making sense of them.
The title of the painting really made me think. While looking at the painting before I know what the title was I never thought too much about memory. By seeing how Dali thought it was a fitting title I needed to look in a little deeper. The Persistence of Memory is interesting by its self. Why would Dali call memory persistent? This seems apparent, wherever you go memory will be with you. Could it be that Dali has memories that keep nagging at him, to the point it is annoying? I honestly can’t see why he chose this title, but I still like it. The only connection to memory I see is through time. The distorted clocks could be representing how time distorts when looking back at memories. With memories you have the ability to warp back to any time in you life instantly. This can make life appear short. If you have lived seventy years but are able to look sum up the main event of your life in a few minutes, appear much shorter than you thought. This idea made me think how every year seems shorter. As a child, summer break felt like a lifetime, but now its gone before I even got used to the idea. Pink Floyd a band of the late sixties and seventies sing about this in their song “Time”,
“…you are young and life is long and there is time to kill today. And then one day you find ten years have got behind you, No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun. And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking. Racing around to come up behind you again. The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older, shorter of breath and one day closer to death. Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time. Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines. Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way, the time is gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say” (Pink Floyd).
Time can be distorted quite easily when in the presence of memory, as well your age.
This painting has made me think a lot about time and how it can be so easily altered by perception. Although I doubt that this is what the painting means, I would rather think about the painting and it mean then just going on-line and looking up what it means. If you just find the meaning without looking for it, there may be no meaning at all.
English 101
Dr. Amy Amendt-Raduege
Discovery Draft
May 6, 2010
Art is a great mode of thought and analysis. Art has the capacity to spark emotion, provoke thought, and stir the imagination. A black and white picture can show the world in a new light, one that may be seen as simpler or gloomy. While an abstract can lead to all sorts of interesting conclusions. The Persistence of Memory, by Salvador Dali is Surrealistic painting; it is a oil canvas painting that was painted in 1931. The Persistence of Memory is a very famous painting that still takes people into thought and wonder. The simple shapes and unusual objects such as the melting clocks, the dead tree, or the abstract face really make it unique. After looking at it for some time, many ideas of its meaning and propose come to mind. Maybe it the distorted clocks could mean that time distorts depending on certain influences such as emotion. It could be revolving around dreams and their impacts, or even other meanings.
Thinking about the idea that time can distort purely based on emotion made me think to times in my life. School was one of the worst areas for this to occur. Somehow ten minutes of hearing my biology teacher talk could feel like hours. But when I get out of school and go bike or hang out with some friends hours turn to minutes. In the painting there is a sagging clock that is on the branch of the dead tree. The tree may represent death, or bad times. And the long distorted clock could represent time being lengthened or slowed. I know for me when something bad happens like crashing on a bike time instantly slows down. Why must the bad times appear longer than the good ones? There is one clock, which is undistorted, and the only one where the numbers and hands are not visible; also, it is much more extravagant than any other clock. I found this interesting; what could Dali be trying to say by painting this? Possibly that in better times (the extravagant decorations) time may almost become irrelevant. I know that when I have no set plans and just go out to have fun, I later realize I have no idea what time it is. Or maybe that if people were to ignore time, put less on their plates to live simpler their lives may become more rich and fulfilling. With all the new technologies the world is becoming a smaller and faster place every day. With high demands at work, and a need for success, stress is an almost certain side effect. Dali may be trying to convey that a slower life style where relationships and passions outweigh the constant push for the latest and greatest may lead to a satisfying life. And that wealth isn’t measured by your possessions, rather your satisfaction in life. Even though time is for the most part constant (light being the only true constant), our perceptions of time can be fairly unstable.
Another idea that came up after looking at this painting was the unconscious. The abstract face appears to be a woman with her eyes closed, possibly asleep. On top of the face is a clock that covers the face like a blanket. What could he be saying here? He might be trying to say that time can also distort during sleep. There are several ways it could do so. First, time could speed up or slow down the way it does in the conscience. During happy dreams time may appear fast, and during nightmares or dreams of bad memories time could slow. There are no limits to dreams, they can distort time be taking you to the distant past of your childhood, or sometimes even combine times of your life together. Could the land Dali painted be the dream of the abstract face? Maybe the face represents Dali, in a dream. If that’s the case, I wonder why he made the land so bleak and simple. The abstract face is in the darkest part of the painting, and the brightest part is the furthest away. Dali may have been going through hard times when he drew this painting. He could have been trying to show how he feels a long ways away from where he wants to be in life, or that he feels depressed and sees no way out. Dreams are abstract occurrences, this surreal painting may just be making sense of them.
The title of the painting really made me think. While looking at the painting before I know what the title was I never thought too much about memory. By seeing how Dali thought it was a fitting title I needed to look in a little deeper. The Persistence of Memory is interesting by its self. Why would Dali call memory persistent? This seems apparent, wherever you go memory will be with you. Could it be that Dali has memories that keep nagging at him, to the point it is annoying? I honestly can’t see why he chose this title, but I still like it. The only connection to memory I see is through time. The distorted clocks could be representing how time distorts when looking back at memories. With memories you have the ability to warp back to any time in you life instantly. This can make life appear short. If you have lived seventy years but are able to look sum up the main event of your life in a few minutes, appear much shorter than you thought. This idea made me think how every year seems shorter. As a child, summer break felt like a lifetime, but now its gone before I even got used to the idea. Pink Floyd a band of the late sixties and seventies sing about this in their song “Time”,
“…you are young and life is long and there is time to kill today. And then one day you find ten years have got behind you, No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun. And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking. Racing around to come up behind you again. The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older, shorter of breath and one day closer to death. Every year is getting shorter, never seem to find the time. Plans that either come to naught or half a page of scribbled lines. Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way, the time is gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say” (Pink Floyd).
Time can be distorted quite easily when in the presence of memory, as well your age.
This painting has made me think a lot about time and how it can be so easily altered by perception. Although I doubt that this is what the painting means, I would rather think about the painting and it mean then just going on-line and looking up what it means. If you just find the meaning without looking for it, there may be no meaning at all.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Reflection
Luke Buehrer
Written Reflection
May 4th 2010
Reflecting on my culminating project I realize what I have learned, how I have grown and what I have accomplished. I came into the project not expecting to learn anything. I had this expectation because I received my AA in Building Construction (Running Start, BTC). Seeing how my project revolved around building it seemed like there wasn’t much more to learn. I didn’t learn too much about building methods, although I did learn how to glaze windows (lots of fun). The big thing I learned however, is the Green building methods and technologies available. With Green building becoming an ever increasingly popular choice in new construction, it is very useful to have this knowledge and understanding.
My project did not have a huge or noticeable community impact. However, there could be some more indirect impacts. Since my parent’s house is much more Green and energy efficient there will be a savings on both ends, the money in their pocket and the consumption of outside energy. This could help our local economy, with my parents having a little more cash around they would be more inclined to buy; which would help businesses. Also, there would be an environmental impact. With the savings of energy the environment would possibly be better off because there would be fewer green house emissions, which would slow the rate of Global Warming ( Assuming Global Warning even exists, despite the overwhelming evidence against it, and the fact that there has been proven to be no link between green house gases causing Global Warming).
The one regret of mine is that I was unable to do the project I truly wanted to do. The High School said that there had to be a community impact, which after explaining the relatively low impact mine had, is a little confusing to me. My original plan was to build a house with Squalicum Builders (The boss being my community advisor). But some how building a house, which is quite literally building the community was unacceptable. I did end up working on that house but as a side project. Another reason why I was not allowed to do my original proposal was because I would be paid for it. It seems like this project is partly to help spark students passions and help them pursue their passions so they know what to do after they graduate. But when I get in to a spot where I am passionate, being paid and directly helping the community it is not okay. Instead I have to slightly benefit the environment. And why is it bad to make money while doing this project. I am not a very greedy person, infact I volunteer all the time. It’s just I don’t like the idea of being forced in to volunteering, which is rather contradictory. I am not trying to come across cold and rebellious, I just would like to see this project be a little more flexible to help match all the students’ passion. I did enjoy doing my culminating project, but I would have been happier doing something I feel passionate about, that more directly relates to the career path I have already chosen.
Other than that I think this has been a good project, however it is a bit weird coming back to the High School and doing a project since I haven’t been here for two years
Written Reflection
May 4th 2010
Reflecting on my culminating project I realize what I have learned, how I have grown and what I have accomplished. I came into the project not expecting to learn anything. I had this expectation because I received my AA in Building Construction (Running Start, BTC). Seeing how my project revolved around building it seemed like there wasn’t much more to learn. I didn’t learn too much about building methods, although I did learn how to glaze windows (lots of fun). The big thing I learned however, is the Green building methods and technologies available. With Green building becoming an ever increasingly popular choice in new construction, it is very useful to have this knowledge and understanding.
My project did not have a huge or noticeable community impact. However, there could be some more indirect impacts. Since my parent’s house is much more Green and energy efficient there will be a savings on both ends, the money in their pocket and the consumption of outside energy. This could help our local economy, with my parents having a little more cash around they would be more inclined to buy; which would help businesses. Also, there would be an environmental impact. With the savings of energy the environment would possibly be better off because there would be fewer green house emissions, which would slow the rate of Global Warming ( Assuming Global Warning even exists, despite the overwhelming evidence against it, and the fact that there has been proven to be no link between green house gases causing Global Warming).
The one regret of mine is that I was unable to do the project I truly wanted to do. The High School said that there had to be a community impact, which after explaining the relatively low impact mine had, is a little confusing to me. My original plan was to build a house with Squalicum Builders (The boss being my community advisor). But some how building a house, which is quite literally building the community was unacceptable. I did end up working on that house but as a side project. Another reason why I was not allowed to do my original proposal was because I would be paid for it. It seems like this project is partly to help spark students passions and help them pursue their passions so they know what to do after they graduate. But when I get in to a spot where I am passionate, being paid and directly helping the community it is not okay. Instead I have to slightly benefit the environment. And why is it bad to make money while doing this project. I am not a very greedy person, infact I volunteer all the time. It’s just I don’t like the idea of being forced in to volunteering, which is rather contradictory. I am not trying to come across cold and rebellious, I just would like to see this project be a little more flexible to help match all the students’ passion. I did enjoy doing my culminating project, but I would have been happier doing something I feel passionate about, that more directly relates to the career path I have already chosen.
Other than that I think this has been a good project, however it is a bit weird coming back to the High School and doing a project since I haven’t been here for two years
Friday, April 30, 2010
final 101
Luke Buehrer
Dr. Amy Amendt-Raduege
Final Draft
English 101
April 18, 2010
No one argues that the world has changed drastically in the past decade with the rise of technology. When technology comes up, almost every one has an opinion. Some people like feel that technology is pushing literacy in new exciting directions. Where others like Sven Birkerts (Author of “The Owl Has Flown”) feel that “ We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the deep and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical conscience.” (Birkerts 32) What he basically says here is that we are losing depth and wisdom, because of new conveniences technology offers. Is technology doing what Birkerts suggest (loss of wisdom) to people’s social lives? Maybe social interaction and communication skills are becoming less important with the new ease of technology, making peoples social and communication skills shallower and less meaningful.
Texting and chat rooms are now a huge form of communication. With cell phones people are now able to carry on conversations from almost anywhere, at any distance and at any time. Texting and other new technologies seem like it would be a good thing. First it makes communication much more efficient, allows for more social interaction, and can promote relationships. But what if it really is hurting instead of helping? Texting is now more common than phone calls; it’s quicker and allows people to hide behind text. Where people once had to practice carrying on real life conversations, texting offers relief from possible awkward situations. If something uncomfortable comes up, people can just stop texting; they don’t have to try ending the conversation. This can lead to poor communication skills, because little effort is put forth practicing communicating in hard situations.
Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notices a different developing trend caused by the Web, “The more they (literate types) use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” (Carr par. 5) He is saying that the ease of sites like Google and Spark Notes is making reading for extended periods of time harder and harder. It seems that this same principle may be true for communication. Like skimming over different texts, one can skim over different conversations in chat rooms, never fully committed to one. This possibly leading to weak skills on carrying on lengthy talks, similar to reading long books or articles. Carr suggests that this inability to read leads to stupidity or at least being less competent to find information. Could these chat rooms could do the same? If people rarely carry on in deep conversions how could they develop vertical thinking? As Birkerts suggests, personal reflection and resonance is a big key to gaining wisdom. But without others to bounce ideas off of, wisdom is hard to grasp.
Carrying on conversations is important, but the context of the conversation is equally if not more important. Particularly true with teenagers, the conversations revolve around shallow self-centered garbage. Since they have access to these technologies all the time there is little effort put forth to have a meaningful talk. When this technology was not around, people had to either write a letter, or call a person up. This made for more meaningful conversations because access to talk was not always present. Someone wouldn’t write a letter to a friend saying you were just “hanging ‘round doin’ nothing,” as is so common now with the internet. Technology has made communication something that people do when their bored, just to entertain, not gain depth.
Technology is a great time-killer, but also offers a false sense of a social life. Sites like Face Book and Myspace allow people to have friends and a “social life” with out ever leaving their computer. There are lots of people with hundreds of on-line friends, but they don’t know half of them. They just like the idea that they are popular. In order to have a social life individuals must go out and do stuff with others, not just sit around blabbering to people about how bored they are. With out real life interaction, it seems hard to call these on-line friends true friends. Relationships are built off of past experiences together. This is hard to accomplish on-line, some people manage to meet on-line, get engaged on-line and first see each other on their wedding day. Although these sites can help spark relationships, healthy relationships occur off the computer.
Texting has had a huge impact, the U.S. Census Bureau found that text messaging sent on cell phones more than doubled from 48 million in December 2007 to 110 billion in December 2008(Is Texting Destroying English Language).This rise in text must have an effect of communication. Beth L. Jokinen, author of Is Texting Destroying English Language said, “With so much texting, it's bound to impact all the grammar and spelling educators spend valuable time teaching.” This impact easily could be harmful, but I wonder if there could be a more consequences of texting? Without the ability to communicate clearly and intelligently there could be some bigger consequences. If people begin using “Text language” for normal talking, a trend that is on the rise many things could be in harms way. Saying “Lol” and other chat room words makes for shallow communication. Without meaningful conversations, new ideas made be bouncing thought of each other will become scarce. The innovation that has made the past century may slow leading to a bleak future.
Texting also can lead to addictive habits. Teenagers especially have a tendency to over use this new technology. A very common symptom of people who over text is a loss of sleep; because they don’t want to miss a text. Many teenagers are becoming sleep deprived because of this. The director of the Oakland, California-based Public Health Institute's Center for Research on Adolescent Health and Development says sleep deprivation is linked to memory and concentration problems, anxiety and depression, moodiness and hyperactivity (What’s that tap tap tap in the night!; Teens’ texting causes sleep problems). If sleep deprivation is link to all these problems then there must be an impact on their social life as well. Being moody, tired and depressed must make socializing hard. It is almost ironic, the desire to be in constant communication may lead to depression, which leads to isolation. So by over socializing it may be possible to become anti-social.
Admittedly these sites do offer some good. They can help people’s social lives, but if only used correctly. The way I see how to use these site appropriately is to do two things, first use it to spark relationships. People can meet lots of people on web sites (like E Harmony a dating site), but you don’t continue your relationship on the site you go out and get to know them in real life. The other way it can be used for healthy relationships is by carrying on an already established relationship. If one already know someone well then it’s easier to have meaningful conversations on-line, because you know them. But relationships based around the computer can never be strong. Another way that sites offer good is to enable far away relatives or friends to communicate with each other. These sites can make people feel a lot closer to far away relatives and friends because they can carry on conversations whenever you want with them, and keep in touch with their life. The big key to using this technology, like almost anything, is moderation.
My perspective may be different from the average American because I use these technologies little. So I may not have first hand experience, but I have observed my friends partake in these technologies. I am not saying they are brainless robots, but I am concerned that this life style could lead to a loss in the future, with poor communication skills and possible weak relationships; life may not seem as fruitful. In the end, these trends will not end the world, but certainly technology like texting and chat rooms are not an activity to overindulge in.
Works Cited
Burrell, Jackie. "Whats that tap tap tap in the night!; Teens’ texting causes sleep
problems." (2009): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr 2010.
Birkerts, Sven. "The Owl Has Flown." 1994. Making Sense: Essays on Art, Science, and
Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 28-34. Print.
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid." The Atlantic July-Aug. 2008. The
Atlantic Wire, July 2008. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.
Jokinen, Beth. "Is Texting Destroying English Language." (2009): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr
2010.
Dr. Amy Amendt-Raduege
Final Draft
English 101
April 18, 2010
No one argues that the world has changed drastically in the past decade with the rise of technology. When technology comes up, almost every one has an opinion. Some people like feel that technology is pushing literacy in new exciting directions. Where others like Sven Birkerts (Author of “The Owl Has Flown”) feel that “ We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the deep and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical conscience.” (Birkerts 32) What he basically says here is that we are losing depth and wisdom, because of new conveniences technology offers. Is technology doing what Birkerts suggest (loss of wisdom) to people’s social lives? Maybe social interaction and communication skills are becoming less important with the new ease of technology, making peoples social and communication skills shallower and less meaningful.
Texting and chat rooms are now a huge form of communication. With cell phones people are now able to carry on conversations from almost anywhere, at any distance and at any time. Texting and other new technologies seem like it would be a good thing. First it makes communication much more efficient, allows for more social interaction, and can promote relationships. But what if it really is hurting instead of helping? Texting is now more common than phone calls; it’s quicker and allows people to hide behind text. Where people once had to practice carrying on real life conversations, texting offers relief from possible awkward situations. If something uncomfortable comes up, people can just stop texting; they don’t have to try ending the conversation. This can lead to poor communication skills, because little effort is put forth practicing communicating in hard situations.
Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notices a different developing trend caused by the Web, “The more they (literate types) use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” (Carr par. 5) He is saying that the ease of sites like Google and Spark Notes is making reading for extended periods of time harder and harder. It seems that this same principle may be true for communication. Like skimming over different texts, one can skim over different conversations in chat rooms, never fully committed to one. This possibly leading to weak skills on carrying on lengthy talks, similar to reading long books or articles. Carr suggests that this inability to read leads to stupidity or at least being less competent to find information. Could these chat rooms could do the same? If people rarely carry on in deep conversions how could they develop vertical thinking? As Birkerts suggests, personal reflection and resonance is a big key to gaining wisdom. But without others to bounce ideas off of, wisdom is hard to grasp.
Carrying on conversations is important, but the context of the conversation is equally if not more important. Particularly true with teenagers, the conversations revolve around shallow self-centered garbage. Since they have access to these technologies all the time there is little effort put forth to have a meaningful talk. When this technology was not around, people had to either write a letter, or call a person up. This made for more meaningful conversations because access to talk was not always present. Someone wouldn’t write a letter to a friend saying you were just “hanging ‘round doin’ nothing,” as is so common now with the internet. Technology has made communication something that people do when their bored, just to entertain, not gain depth.
Technology is a great time-killer, but also offers a false sense of a social life. Sites like Face Book and Myspace allow people to have friends and a “social life” with out ever leaving their computer. There are lots of people with hundreds of on-line friends, but they don’t know half of them. They just like the idea that they are popular. In order to have a social life individuals must go out and do stuff with others, not just sit around blabbering to people about how bored they are. With out real life interaction, it seems hard to call these on-line friends true friends. Relationships are built off of past experiences together. This is hard to accomplish on-line, some people manage to meet on-line, get engaged on-line and first see each other on their wedding day. Although these sites can help spark relationships, healthy relationships occur off the computer.
Texting has had a huge impact, the U.S. Census Bureau found that text messaging sent on cell phones more than doubled from 48 million in December 2007 to 110 billion in December 2008(Is Texting Destroying English Language).This rise in text must have an effect of communication. Beth L. Jokinen, author of Is Texting Destroying English Language said, “With so much texting, it's bound to impact all the grammar and spelling educators spend valuable time teaching.” This impact easily could be harmful, but I wonder if there could be a more consequences of texting? Without the ability to communicate clearly and intelligently there could be some bigger consequences. If people begin using “Text language” for normal talking, a trend that is on the rise many things could be in harms way. Saying “Lol” and other chat room words makes for shallow communication. Without meaningful conversations, new ideas made be bouncing thought of each other will become scarce. The innovation that has made the past century may slow leading to a bleak future.
Texting also can lead to addictive habits. Teenagers especially have a tendency to over use this new technology. A very common symptom of people who over text is a loss of sleep; because they don’t want to miss a text. Many teenagers are becoming sleep deprived because of this. The director of the Oakland, California-based Public Health Institute's Center for Research on Adolescent Health and Development says sleep deprivation is linked to memory and concentration problems, anxiety and depression, moodiness and hyperactivity (What’s that tap tap tap in the night!; Teens’ texting causes sleep problems). If sleep deprivation is link to all these problems then there must be an impact on their social life as well. Being moody, tired and depressed must make socializing hard. It is almost ironic, the desire to be in constant communication may lead to depression, which leads to isolation. So by over socializing it may be possible to become anti-social.
Admittedly these sites do offer some good. They can help people’s social lives, but if only used correctly. The way I see how to use these site appropriately is to do two things, first use it to spark relationships. People can meet lots of people on web sites (like E Harmony a dating site), but you don’t continue your relationship on the site you go out and get to know them in real life. The other way it can be used for healthy relationships is by carrying on an already established relationship. If one already know someone well then it’s easier to have meaningful conversations on-line, because you know them. But relationships based around the computer can never be strong. Another way that sites offer good is to enable far away relatives or friends to communicate with each other. These sites can make people feel a lot closer to far away relatives and friends because they can carry on conversations whenever you want with them, and keep in touch with their life. The big key to using this technology, like almost anything, is moderation.
My perspective may be different from the average American because I use these technologies little. So I may not have first hand experience, but I have observed my friends partake in these technologies. I am not saying they are brainless robots, but I am concerned that this life style could lead to a loss in the future, with poor communication skills and possible weak relationships; life may not seem as fruitful. In the end, these trends will not end the world, but certainly technology like texting and chat rooms are not an activity to overindulge in.
Works Cited
Burrell, Jackie. "Whats that tap tap tap in the night!; Teens’ texting causes sleep
problems." (2009): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr 2010.
Birkerts, Sven. "The Owl Has Flown." 1994. Making Sense: Essays on Art, Science, and
Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 28-34. Print.
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid." The Atlantic July-Aug. 2008. The
Atlantic Wire, July 2008. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.
Jokinen, Beth. "Is Texting Destroying English Language." (2009): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr
2010.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Draft #1
Luke Buehrer
Dr. Amy Amendt-Raduege
Assignment #1
English 101
April 18, 2010
No one argues that the world has changed drastically in the past decade with the rise of technology. When technology comes up, almost every one has an opinion. Some people like feel that technology is pushing literacy in new exciting directions. Where others like Sven Birkerts (Author of The Owl Has Flown) feel that “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the deep and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical conscience.” (Birkerts 32) What he basically says here is that we are losing depth and wisdom, because of new conveniences technology offers. Is technology doing what Birkerts suggest (loss of wisdom) to people’s social lives? Maybe social interaction and communication skills are becoming less important with the new ease of technology, making peoples social and communication skills shallower and less meaningful.
Texting and chat rooms are now a huge form of communication. With cell phones people are now able to carry on conversations from almost anywhere, at any distance and at any time. This seems like it would be a good thing. First it makes communication much more efficient, allows for more social interaction, and can promote relationships. But what if it really is hurting instead of helping. Texting is now more common than phone calls; it’s quicker and allows people to hide behind text. Where people once had to practice carrying on real life conversations, texting offers relief from possible awkward situations. If something uncomfortable comes up, people can just stop texting; they don’t have to try ending the conversation. This can lead to poor communication skills, because little effort is put forth practicing communicating in hard situations.
Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notices a different developing trend caused by the Web, “The more they (literate types) use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” (Carr par. 5) He is saying that the ease of sites like Google and Spark Notes is making reading for extended periods of time harder and harder. It seems that this same principle may be true for communication. Like skimming over different texts, one can skim over different conversations in chat rooms, never fully committed to one. This possibly leading to weak skills on carrying on lengthy talks, similar to reading long books or articles. Carr suggests that this inability to read leads to stupidity or at least being less competent to find information. Could these chat rooms could do the same? If people rarely carry on in deep conversions how could they develop vertical thinking? As Birkerts suggests, personal reflection and resonance is a big key to gaining wisdom. But without others to bounce ideas off of, wisdom is hard to grasp.
Caring on conversations is important, but the context of the conversation is equally if not more important. Particularly true with teenagers, the conversations revolve around shallow self-center garbage. Since they have access to this all the time there is little effort put forth to have a meaningful talk. When this technology was not around, people had to either write a letter, or call a person up. This made for more meaningful conversations because access to talk was not always present. Someone wouldn’t write a letter to a friend saying you were just “hanging ‘round doin’ nothing,” as is so common now with the internet. Technology has made communication something that people do when their bored, just to entertain, not gain depth.
Technology is a great time-killer, but also offers a false sense of a social life. Sites like Face Book and Myspace allow people to have friends and a “social life” with out ever leaving their computer. There are lots of people with hundreds of on-line friends, but they don’t know half of them. They just like the idea that they are popular. In order to have a social life individuals must go out and do stuff with others, not just sit around blabbering to people about how bored they are. With out real life interaction, it seems hard to call these on-line friends true friends. Relationships are built off of past experiences together. This is hard to accomplish on-line, some people manage to meet on-line, get engaged on-line and first see each other on their wedding day. Although these sites can help spark relationships, healthy relationships occur off the computer.
Texting has had a huge impact, the U.S. Census Bureau found that text messaging sent on cell phones more than doubled from 48 million in December 2007 to 110 billion in December 2008(Is Texting Destroying English Language).This rise in text must have an effect of communication. Beth L. Jokinen, author of Is Texting Destroying English Language said, “With so much texting, it's bound to impact all the grammar and spelling educators spend valuable time teaching.” While this easily could be true could it have a even bigger impact. Without the ability to communicate clearly and intelligently there could be some bigger consequences. If people begin using “Text language” for normal talking, a trend that is on the rise many things could be in harms way. Saying “Lol” and other chat room words makes for shallow communication. Without meaningful conversations, new ideas made be bouncing thought of each other will become scarce. The innovation that has made the past century may slow leading to a bleak future.
Texting also can lead to addictive habits. Teenagers especially have a tendency to over use this new technology. A very common symptom of people who over text is a loss of sleep; because they don’t want to miss a text. Many teenagers are becoming sleep deprived because of this. The director of the Oakland, Calif.-based Public Health Institute's Center for Research on Adolescent Health and Development says sleep deprivation is linked to memory and concentration problems, anxiety and depression, moodiness and hyperactivity ( W h a t ' s t h a t ' t a p t a p t a p ' i n t h e n i g h t ? ; T e e n s ' t e x t i n g c a u s e s s l e e p p r o b l e m s). If sleep deprivation is link to all these problems then there must be an impact on their social life as well. Being moody, tired and depressed must make socializing hard. It is almost ironic, the desire to be in constant communication may lead to depression, which leads to isolation. So by over socializing it may be possible to become anti-social.
Admittedly these sites do offer some good. They can help people’s social lives, but if only used correctly. The way I see how to use these site appropriately is to do two things, first use it to spark relationships. People can meet lots of people on web sites (like E Harmony a dating site), but you don’t continue your relationship on the site you go out and get to know them in real life. The other way it can be used for healthy relationships is by carrying on an already established relationship. If one already know someone well then it’s easier to have meaningful conversations on-line, because you know them. But relationships based around the computer can never be strong. Another way that sites offer good is to enable far away relatives or friends to communicate with each other. These sites can make people feel a lot closer to far away relatives and friends because they can carry on conversations whenever you want with them, and keep in touch with their life. The big key to using this technology, like almost anything, is moderation.
My perspective may be different from the average American because I use these technologies little. So I may not have first hand experience, but I have observed my friends partake in these technologies. I am not saying they are brainless robots, but I am concerned that this life style could lead to a loss in the future, with poor communication skills and possible weak relationships; life may not seem as fruitful. In the end, these trends will not end the world, but certainly technology like texting and chat rooms are not an activity to overindulge in.
Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. "The Owl Has Flown." 1994. Making Sense: Essays on Art, Science, and Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 28-34. Print.
Beth L. Jokinen. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Dec 28, 2009.
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid." The Atlantic July-Aug. 2008. The Atlantic Wire, July 2008. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.
Jackie Burrell. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Nov 1, 2009. p. 25
Dr. Amy Amendt-Raduege
Assignment #1
English 101
April 18, 2010
No one argues that the world has changed drastically in the past decade with the rise of technology. When technology comes up, almost every one has an opinion. Some people like feel that technology is pushing literacy in new exciting directions. Where others like Sven Birkerts (Author of The Owl Has Flown) feel that “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the deep and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical conscience.” (Birkerts 32) What he basically says here is that we are losing depth and wisdom, because of new conveniences technology offers. Is technology doing what Birkerts suggest (loss of wisdom) to people’s social lives? Maybe social interaction and communication skills are becoming less important with the new ease of technology, making peoples social and communication skills shallower and less meaningful.
Texting and chat rooms are now a huge form of communication. With cell phones people are now able to carry on conversations from almost anywhere, at any distance and at any time. This seems like it would be a good thing. First it makes communication much more efficient, allows for more social interaction, and can promote relationships. But what if it really is hurting instead of helping. Texting is now more common than phone calls; it’s quicker and allows people to hide behind text. Where people once had to practice carrying on real life conversations, texting offers relief from possible awkward situations. If something uncomfortable comes up, people can just stop texting; they don’t have to try ending the conversation. This can lead to poor communication skills, because little effort is put forth practicing communicating in hard situations.
Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notices a different developing trend caused by the Web, “The more they (literate types) use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” (Carr par. 5) He is saying that the ease of sites like Google and Spark Notes is making reading for extended periods of time harder and harder. It seems that this same principle may be true for communication. Like skimming over different texts, one can skim over different conversations in chat rooms, never fully committed to one. This possibly leading to weak skills on carrying on lengthy talks, similar to reading long books or articles. Carr suggests that this inability to read leads to stupidity or at least being less competent to find information. Could these chat rooms could do the same? If people rarely carry on in deep conversions how could they develop vertical thinking? As Birkerts suggests, personal reflection and resonance is a big key to gaining wisdom. But without others to bounce ideas off of, wisdom is hard to grasp.
Caring on conversations is important, but the context of the conversation is equally if not more important. Particularly true with teenagers, the conversations revolve around shallow self-center garbage. Since they have access to this all the time there is little effort put forth to have a meaningful talk. When this technology was not around, people had to either write a letter, or call a person up. This made for more meaningful conversations because access to talk was not always present. Someone wouldn’t write a letter to a friend saying you were just “hanging ‘round doin’ nothing,” as is so common now with the internet. Technology has made communication something that people do when their bored, just to entertain, not gain depth.
Technology is a great time-killer, but also offers a false sense of a social life. Sites like Face Book and Myspace allow people to have friends and a “social life” with out ever leaving their computer. There are lots of people with hundreds of on-line friends, but they don’t know half of them. They just like the idea that they are popular. In order to have a social life individuals must go out and do stuff with others, not just sit around blabbering to people about how bored they are. With out real life interaction, it seems hard to call these on-line friends true friends. Relationships are built off of past experiences together. This is hard to accomplish on-line, some people manage to meet on-line, get engaged on-line and first see each other on their wedding day. Although these sites can help spark relationships, healthy relationships occur off the computer.
Texting has had a huge impact, the U.S. Census Bureau found that text messaging sent on cell phones more than doubled from 48 million in December 2007 to 110 billion in December 2008(Is Texting Destroying English Language).This rise in text must have an effect of communication. Beth L. Jokinen, author of Is Texting Destroying English Language said, “With so much texting, it's bound to impact all the grammar and spelling educators spend valuable time teaching.” While this easily could be true could it have a even bigger impact. Without the ability to communicate clearly and intelligently there could be some bigger consequences. If people begin using “Text language” for normal talking, a trend that is on the rise many things could be in harms way. Saying “Lol” and other chat room words makes for shallow communication. Without meaningful conversations, new ideas made be bouncing thought of each other will become scarce. The innovation that has made the past century may slow leading to a bleak future.
Texting also can lead to addictive habits. Teenagers especially have a tendency to over use this new technology. A very common symptom of people who over text is a loss of sleep; because they don’t want to miss a text. Many teenagers are becoming sleep deprived because of this. The director of the Oakland, Calif.-based Public Health Institute's Center for Research on Adolescent Health and Development says sleep deprivation is linked to memory and concentration problems, anxiety and depression, moodiness and hyperactivity ( W h a t ' s t h a t ' t a p t a p t a p ' i n t h e n i g h t ? ; T e e n s ' t e x t i n g c a u s e s s l e e p p r o b l e m s). If sleep deprivation is link to all these problems then there must be an impact on their social life as well. Being moody, tired and depressed must make socializing hard. It is almost ironic, the desire to be in constant communication may lead to depression, which leads to isolation. So by over socializing it may be possible to become anti-social.
Admittedly these sites do offer some good. They can help people’s social lives, but if only used correctly. The way I see how to use these site appropriately is to do two things, first use it to spark relationships. People can meet lots of people on web sites (like E Harmony a dating site), but you don’t continue your relationship on the site you go out and get to know them in real life. The other way it can be used for healthy relationships is by carrying on an already established relationship. If one already know someone well then it’s easier to have meaningful conversations on-line, because you know them. But relationships based around the computer can never be strong. Another way that sites offer good is to enable far away relatives or friends to communicate with each other. These sites can make people feel a lot closer to far away relatives and friends because they can carry on conversations whenever you want with them, and keep in touch with their life. The big key to using this technology, like almost anything, is moderation.
My perspective may be different from the average American because I use these technologies little. So I may not have first hand experience, but I have observed my friends partake in these technologies. I am not saying they are brainless robots, but I am concerned that this life style could lead to a loss in the future, with poor communication skills and possible weak relationships; life may not seem as fruitful. In the end, these trends will not end the world, but certainly technology like texting and chat rooms are not an activity to overindulge in.
Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. "The Owl Has Flown." 1994. Making Sense: Essays on Art, Science, and Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 28-34. Print.
Beth L. Jokinen. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Dec 28, 2009.
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid." The Atlantic July-Aug. 2008. The Atlantic Wire, July 2008. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.
Jackie Burrell. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Nov 1, 2009. p. 25
Monday, March 15, 2010
final essay
Luke Buehrer Out of Class Essay #2
Eng 100 B
March 15, 2010
Poor Communication
No one argues that the world has changed drastically in the past decade with the rise of technology. When technology comes up, almost every one has an opinion. Some people like Clive Thompson (Author of A New Literacy) feel that technology is pushing literacy in new exciting directions. Where others like Sven Birkerts (Author of The Owl Has Flown) feel that “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the deep and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical conscience.” (Birkerts 32) What he basically says here is that we are losing depth and wisdom, because of new conveniences technology offers. I wonder if technology is doing what Birkerts suggest (loss of wisdom) to people’s social lives? Maybe social interaction and communication skills are becoming less important with the new ease of technology, making peoples social and communication skills shallower and less meaningful.
Texting and chat rooms are now a huge form of communication. With cell phones people are now able to carry on conversations from almost anywhere, at any distance and at any time. This seems like it would be a good thing. First it makes communication much more efficient, allows for more social interaction, and can promote relationships. But I wonder if it really is hurting instead of helping. Texting is now more common than phone calls; it’s quicker and allows people to hide behind text. Where people once had to practice carrying on real life conversations, texting offers relief from possible awkward situations. If something uncomfortable comes up, you just stop texting; you don’t have to try ending the conversation. This can lead to poor communication skills, because little effort is put forth practicing communicating in hard situations.
Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notices a different developing trend caused by the Web, “The more they (literate types) use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” (Carr par. 5) He is saying that the ease of sites like Google and Spark Notes is making reading for extended periods of time harder and harder. It seems to me that this same principle may be true for communication. Like skimming over different texts, you can skim over different conversations in chat rooms, never fully committed to one. This possibly leading to weak skills on carrying on lengthy talks, similar to reading long books or articles. Carr suggests that this inability to read leads to stupidity (hence the title). I wonder if these chat rooms could do the same? If people rarely carry on in deep conversions how could they develop vertical thinking? As Birkerts suggests, personal reflection and resonance is a big key to gaining wisdom. But without others to bounce ideas off of, wisdom is hard to grasp.
Caring on conversations is important, but the context of the conversation is equally if not more important. Particularly true with teenagers, the conversations revolve around shallow self-center garbage. Since they have access to this all the time there is little effort put forth to have a meaningful talk. When this technology was not around, people had to either write a letter, or call a person up. This made for more meaningful conversations because access to talk was not always present. You wouldn’t write a letter to a friend saying you were just “hanging ‘round doin’ nothing.” Technology has made communication something that you do when your bored, just to entertain, not gain depth.
Technology is a great time-killer, but also offers a false sense of a social life. One of the biggest things that annoys me with sites like Face Book and Myspace is that it allows you to have friends and a “social life” with out ever leaving you computer. I know lots of people with hundreds of on-line friends, but they don’t know half of them. They just like the idea that they are popular. I personally don’t partake in these sites. I think that to have a social life you must go out and do stuff with others, not just sit around blabbering to people how bored you are. With out real life interaction I find it hard to see how you can call these on-line friends true friends. Relationships are built off of past experiences together. This is hard to accomplish on-line, some people manage to meet on-line, get engaged on-line and first see each other on their wedding day. I don’t know the statistics but I am sure they don’t have the longest marriages out there. Although these sites can help spark relationships, healthy relationships occur off the computer.
I must admit however, that these sites do offer some good. They can help people’s social lives, but if only used correctly. The way I see how to use these site appropriately is to do two things, first use it to spark relationships. You can meet lots of people on web sites (like E Harmony a dating site), but you don’t continue your relationship on the site you go out and get to know them in real life. The other way it can be used for healthy relationships is by carrying on an already established relationship. If you already know someone well then its easier to have meaningful conversations, because you know them. But relationships based around the computer can never be strong. Another way that sites offer good is to enable far away relatives or friends to communicate with each other. These sites can make you feel a lot closer to far away relatives and friends because you can carry on conversations whenever you want with them. The big key to using this technology, like almost anything, is moderation.
Chat rooms and texting from every angle I look seem to hurt people’s social, and communication skills. These sites promote easy escape from awkward situations, encourage skimming of conversations that ultimately leads to poor communication skills, let people blabber on about them selves, reinforcing immature habits, and also kill true social lives. Avoiding bias, I agree that these sites are not all bad. They help spark, and carry on established relationships. But without the proper usage of this new technology you can do a lot more harm than good.
My perspective may be different from the average American because I use these technologies little. So I may not have first hand experience, but I have observed my friends partake in these technologies. I am not saying they are brainless robots, but I am concerned that this life style could lead to a loss in the future, with poor communication skills and possible weak relationships; life may not seem as fruitful. In the end, these trends will not end the world, but certainly technology like texting and chat rooms are not an activity to overindulge in.
Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. "The Owl Has Flown." 1994. Making Sense: Essays on Art, Science, and Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 28-34. Print.
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid." The Atlantic July-Aug. 2008. The Atlantic Wire, July 2008. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.
Eng 100 B
March 15, 2010
Poor Communication
No one argues that the world has changed drastically in the past decade with the rise of technology. When technology comes up, almost every one has an opinion. Some people like Clive Thompson (Author of A New Literacy) feel that technology is pushing literacy in new exciting directions. Where others like Sven Birkerts (Author of The Owl Has Flown) feel that “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the deep and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical conscience.” (Birkerts 32) What he basically says here is that we are losing depth and wisdom, because of new conveniences technology offers. I wonder if technology is doing what Birkerts suggest (loss of wisdom) to people’s social lives? Maybe social interaction and communication skills are becoming less important with the new ease of technology, making peoples social and communication skills shallower and less meaningful.
Texting and chat rooms are now a huge form of communication. With cell phones people are now able to carry on conversations from almost anywhere, at any distance and at any time. This seems like it would be a good thing. First it makes communication much more efficient, allows for more social interaction, and can promote relationships. But I wonder if it really is hurting instead of helping. Texting is now more common than phone calls; it’s quicker and allows people to hide behind text. Where people once had to practice carrying on real life conversations, texting offers relief from possible awkward situations. If something uncomfortable comes up, you just stop texting; you don’t have to try ending the conversation. This can lead to poor communication skills, because little effort is put forth practicing communicating in hard situations.
Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notices a different developing trend caused by the Web, “The more they (literate types) use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” (Carr par. 5) He is saying that the ease of sites like Google and Spark Notes is making reading for extended periods of time harder and harder. It seems to me that this same principle may be true for communication. Like skimming over different texts, you can skim over different conversations in chat rooms, never fully committed to one. This possibly leading to weak skills on carrying on lengthy talks, similar to reading long books or articles. Carr suggests that this inability to read leads to stupidity (hence the title). I wonder if these chat rooms could do the same? If people rarely carry on in deep conversions how could they develop vertical thinking? As Birkerts suggests, personal reflection and resonance is a big key to gaining wisdom. But without others to bounce ideas off of, wisdom is hard to grasp.
Caring on conversations is important, but the context of the conversation is equally if not more important. Particularly true with teenagers, the conversations revolve around shallow self-center garbage. Since they have access to this all the time there is little effort put forth to have a meaningful talk. When this technology was not around, people had to either write a letter, or call a person up. This made for more meaningful conversations because access to talk was not always present. You wouldn’t write a letter to a friend saying you were just “hanging ‘round doin’ nothing.” Technology has made communication something that you do when your bored, just to entertain, not gain depth.
Technology is a great time-killer, but also offers a false sense of a social life. One of the biggest things that annoys me with sites like Face Book and Myspace is that it allows you to have friends and a “social life” with out ever leaving you computer. I know lots of people with hundreds of on-line friends, but they don’t know half of them. They just like the idea that they are popular. I personally don’t partake in these sites. I think that to have a social life you must go out and do stuff with others, not just sit around blabbering to people how bored you are. With out real life interaction I find it hard to see how you can call these on-line friends true friends. Relationships are built off of past experiences together. This is hard to accomplish on-line, some people manage to meet on-line, get engaged on-line and first see each other on their wedding day. I don’t know the statistics but I am sure they don’t have the longest marriages out there. Although these sites can help spark relationships, healthy relationships occur off the computer.
I must admit however, that these sites do offer some good. They can help people’s social lives, but if only used correctly. The way I see how to use these site appropriately is to do two things, first use it to spark relationships. You can meet lots of people on web sites (like E Harmony a dating site), but you don’t continue your relationship on the site you go out and get to know them in real life. The other way it can be used for healthy relationships is by carrying on an already established relationship. If you already know someone well then its easier to have meaningful conversations, because you know them. But relationships based around the computer can never be strong. Another way that sites offer good is to enable far away relatives or friends to communicate with each other. These sites can make you feel a lot closer to far away relatives and friends because you can carry on conversations whenever you want with them. The big key to using this technology, like almost anything, is moderation.
Chat rooms and texting from every angle I look seem to hurt people’s social, and communication skills. These sites promote easy escape from awkward situations, encourage skimming of conversations that ultimately leads to poor communication skills, let people blabber on about them selves, reinforcing immature habits, and also kill true social lives. Avoiding bias, I agree that these sites are not all bad. They help spark, and carry on established relationships. But without the proper usage of this new technology you can do a lot more harm than good.
My perspective may be different from the average American because I use these technologies little. So I may not have first hand experience, but I have observed my friends partake in these technologies. I am not saying they are brainless robots, but I am concerned that this life style could lead to a loss in the future, with poor communication skills and possible weak relationships; life may not seem as fruitful. In the end, these trends will not end the world, but certainly technology like texting and chat rooms are not an activity to overindulge in.
Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. "The Owl Has Flown." 1994. Making Sense: Essays on Art, Science, and Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 28-34. Print.
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid." The Atlantic July-Aug. 2008. The Atlantic Wire, July 2008. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
In class #3
Luke Buehrer
In Class Essay #3
3/9/10
Today’s technologies have made for an ever faster world. With the ability of instant communication, information at the click of a button, we are becoming quicker and more efficient in the way we live our lives. When I take a look at these abilities it seems that only good could come form it. However, this may not be the case. Sven Birkerts author of The Owl Has Flown, writes about this very idea. Birkerts says in his essay that we are experiencing a shift in the way we take in information, from vertical thinking to Horizontal thinking. Or as Robert Darnton puts it (referenced by Birkerts), a shift from intensive to extensive thinking. What both authors are saying is that today we look at more text and information, but spend less time focusing on one piece, in thought. Birkerts thinks more on the idea by saying, “Where Time has been commodified, flattened, turned into yet another thing measured, there is no chance that any piece of information can unfold its potential significance” (Birkerts 33). What this means simply is that we are busy, and not wanting to waste time, we put aside things like deep thinking, in order to discover deeper meaning. I agree with Birkerts, the strain for a faster world, caused by new technologies like the computer, has made for less time in deep thought. This ultimately made for a shallower world where quantity is preferred over quality.
Web sites like Google have made research and looking up information incredibly trouble-free. When you have a question, why think, when the answer is just seconds away? Birkerts says that, “We direct our energies to managing information. The computer, our high speed, accessing, storing, and sorting tool, appears as a godsend. It increasingly determines what kind of information we are willing to traffic in; I something cannot be written in code or transmitted, it cannot be important.”(Birkerts 33) Birkerts is saying here that we use our energy sorting out information that we no longer think, but simply let the computer do it for use. This is very destructive to depth. How do you gain depth without thought? Like Birkerts says, “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth… … swamped by data, and in thrall to the technologies that manipulate it, we no longer think in these larger and necessarily more precise terms”(Birkerts 32).
Computers have brought upon us many conveniences. Among these, communication may be seen as one of the most changed. Before the internet phones and letters were the primary way of communicating. But today texting and chat rooms have filled their place. Letters took skill and effort in order to be done right. Ever letter sent required a carefully, well thought out paper. Because it took so long to receive a letter, letters were needed to be clear and effective. But today’s technologies have taken this art away. Now all you need to do is text someone and in a second they will get it. There is no need for a well constructed letter, but just a fast little couple sentence message (at the most) that required little to no effort or thought. This shows how we demand speed and are willing to sacrifice thought to receive it.
Admittedly, technology is not all bad; it can be a very helpful tool. If used properly wisdom and depth may even be acquired. But to gain this, one must not fall into the conveniences that it offers. Instead use it with caution and care. Gaining information on-line is simple, but to gain depth is hard. A common problem is that people jump around looking at all the information. I think that to gain wisdom, people should find one thing and reflect on it. It s easy to get tempted by the ease, but to gain wisdom, there must be reflection and thought.
In Class Essay #3
3/9/10
Today’s technologies have made for an ever faster world. With the ability of instant communication, information at the click of a button, we are becoming quicker and more efficient in the way we live our lives. When I take a look at these abilities it seems that only good could come form it. However, this may not be the case. Sven Birkerts author of The Owl Has Flown, writes about this very idea. Birkerts says in his essay that we are experiencing a shift in the way we take in information, from vertical thinking to Horizontal thinking. Or as Robert Darnton puts it (referenced by Birkerts), a shift from intensive to extensive thinking. What both authors are saying is that today we look at more text and information, but spend less time focusing on one piece, in thought. Birkerts thinks more on the idea by saying, “Where Time has been commodified, flattened, turned into yet another thing measured, there is no chance that any piece of information can unfold its potential significance” (Birkerts 33). What this means simply is that we are busy, and not wanting to waste time, we put aside things like deep thinking, in order to discover deeper meaning. I agree with Birkerts, the strain for a faster world, caused by new technologies like the computer, has made for less time in deep thought. This ultimately made for a shallower world where quantity is preferred over quality.
Web sites like Google have made research and looking up information incredibly trouble-free. When you have a question, why think, when the answer is just seconds away? Birkerts says that, “We direct our energies to managing information. The computer, our high speed, accessing, storing, and sorting tool, appears as a godsend. It increasingly determines what kind of information we are willing to traffic in; I something cannot be written in code or transmitted, it cannot be important.”(Birkerts 33) Birkerts is saying here that we use our energy sorting out information that we no longer think, but simply let the computer do it for use. This is very destructive to depth. How do you gain depth without thought? Like Birkerts says, “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth… … swamped by data, and in thrall to the technologies that manipulate it, we no longer think in these larger and necessarily more precise terms”(Birkerts 32).
Computers have brought upon us many conveniences. Among these, communication may be seen as one of the most changed. Before the internet phones and letters were the primary way of communicating. But today texting and chat rooms have filled their place. Letters took skill and effort in order to be done right. Ever letter sent required a carefully, well thought out paper. Because it took so long to receive a letter, letters were needed to be clear and effective. But today’s technologies have taken this art away. Now all you need to do is text someone and in a second they will get it. There is no need for a well constructed letter, but just a fast little couple sentence message (at the most) that required little to no effort or thought. This shows how we demand speed and are willing to sacrifice thought to receive it.
Admittedly, technology is not all bad; it can be a very helpful tool. If used properly wisdom and depth may even be acquired. But to gain this, one must not fall into the conveniences that it offers. Instead use it with caution and care. Gaining information on-line is simple, but to gain depth is hard. A common problem is that people jump around looking at all the information. I think that to gain wisdom, people should find one thing and reflect on it. It s easy to get tempted by the ease, but to gain wisdom, there must be reflection and thought.
Monday, March 8, 2010
peer thing
Maybe social interaction and communication skills are becoming less important with the new ease of technology, making peoples social and communication skills shallower and less meaningful.
This quote is pretty straight forward; I am suggesting that new technologies are making for poor communication skills and shallow communication. This quote is just a claim designed to get my readers thinking, and shows them that I am not absolutely sure what the effects are of new technology (by saying “maybe”).
What is the point of the poor communication skills? How does it fit in with your paper? Is it going to be effective? Are there other ways to make your paper even stronger? How is social interaction becoming less important? Are there other ways to think about communication skills? Are the effects of new technology good? Or are they bad? How are they trying to get the reader to think?J
New technologies have had a major impact on communication skills. Some for the better some for the worst. Social interaction is changing form, but what it is becoming has draw backs as well as improvements. The topic is complicated and not black and white so having a one sided opinion is simply undeveloped.
This quote is pretty straight forward; I am suggesting that new technologies are making for poor communication skills and shallow communication. This quote is just a claim designed to get my readers thinking, and shows them that I am not absolutely sure what the effects are of new technology (by saying “maybe”).
What is the point of the poor communication skills? How does it fit in with your paper? Is it going to be effective? Are there other ways to make your paper even stronger? How is social interaction becoming less important? Are there other ways to think about communication skills? Are the effects of new technology good? Or are they bad? How are they trying to get the reader to think?J
New technologies have had a major impact on communication skills. Some for the better some for the worst. Social interaction is changing form, but what it is becoming has draw backs as well as improvements. The topic is complicated and not black and white so having a one sided opinion is simply undeveloped.
Friday, March 5, 2010
2nd draft essay #2
Luke Buehrer Out of Class Essay #2
2nd Draft
No one argues that the world has changed drastically in the past decade with the rise of technology. When technology comes up, almost every one has an opinion. Some people like Clive Thompson feel that technology is pushing literacy in new exciting directions. Where others like Sven Birkerts feel that “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the deep and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical conscience.” (Birkerts 32) What he basically says here is that we are losing depth and wisdom, because of new conveniences technology offers. I wonder if technology is doing what Birkerts suggest (loss of wisdom) to people’s social lives? Maybe social interaction and communication skills are becoming less important with the new ease of technology, making peoples social and communication skills shallower and less meaningful.
Texting and chat rooms are now a huge form of communication. With cell phones people are now able to carry on conversations from almost anywhere, at any distance and at any time. This seems like it would be a good thing. First it makes communication much more efficient, allows for more social interaction, and can promote relationships. But I wonder if it really is hurting instead of helping. Texting is now more common than phone calls; it’s quicker and allows people to hide behind text. Where people once had to practice carrying on real life conversations, texting offers relief from possible awkward situations. If something uncomfortable comes up, you just stop texting; you don’t have to try ending the conversation. This encourages immature behavior and shallow interaction.
Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notices a developing trend caused by the Web, “The more they (literate types) use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” (Carr par. 5) He is saying that the ease of sites like Google and Spark Notes is making reading for extended periods of time harder and harder. It seems to me that this same principle may be true for communication. Like skimming over different texts, you can skim over different conversations in chat rooms, never fully committed to one. This possibly leading to weak skills on carrying on lengthy talks, similar to reading long books or articles. Carr suggests that this inability to read leads to stupidity (hence the title). I wonder if these chat rooms could do the same? If people rarely carry on in deep conversions how could they develop vertical thinking? Yes, personal reflection and resonance is a big key to gaining wisdom, but without others to bounce ideas off wisdom is hard to grasp.
Another more apparent way technology (primarily Texting and chat rooms) is hurting us is just the content of the conversations carried on. Particularly true with teenagers, the conversations revolve around shallow self-center garbage. Since they have access to this all the time there is little effort put forth to have a meaningful talk. When this technology was not around, people had to either write a letter, or call a person up. The only way you would do this is if you truly had something of importance or meaning. You wouldn’t write a letter to a friend saying you were just “hanging ‘round doin’ nothing.” Technology has made communication something that you do when your bored, just to entertain, not gain depth.
One of the biggest things that annoys me with sites like Face Book and Myspace is that it allows you to have friends and a “social life” with out ever leaving you computer. I know lots of people with hundreds of on-line friends, but they don’t know half of them. They just like the idea that they are popular. I personally don’t partake in these sites. I think that to have a social life you must go out and do stuff with others, not just sit around blabbering to people how bored you are. With out real life interaction I find it hard to see how you can call these on-line friends true friends. Relationships are built off of past experiences together. This is hard to accomplish on-line, some people manage to meet on-line, get engaged on-line and first see each other on their wedding day. I don’t know the statistics but I am sure they don’t have the longest marriages out there. Although these sites can help spark relationships, true relationships occur off the computer.
I must admit however, that these sites do offer some good. They can help people’s social lives, but if only used correctly. The way I see how to use these site appropriately is to do two things, first use it to spark relationships. You can meet lots of people on web sites (like E Harmony a dating site), but you don’t continue your relationship on the site you go out and get to know them in real life. The other way it can be used for healthy relationships is by carrying on an already established relationship. If you already know someone well then its easier to have meaningful conversations, because you know them. But relationships based around the computer can never be strong. Another way that sites offer good is to enable far away relatives or friends to communicate with each other. These sites can make you feel a lot closer to far away relatives and friends because you can carry on conversations whenever you want with them. The big key to using this technology, like almost anything, is moderation.
Chat rooms and texting from every angle I look seem to hurt people’s social, and communication skills. These sites promote easy escape from awkward situations, encourage skimming of conversations that ultimately leads to poor communication skills, let people blabber on about them selves, reinforcing immature habits, and also kill true social lives. Avoiding bias, I agree that these sites are not all bad. They help spark, and carry on established relationships. But without the proper usage of this new technology you can do a lot more harm than good.
Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. "The Owl Has Flown." 1994. Making Sense: Essays on Art, Science, and Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 28-34. Print.
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid." The Atlantic July-Aug. 2008. The Atlantic Wire, July 2008. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.
2nd Draft
No one argues that the world has changed drastically in the past decade with the rise of technology. When technology comes up, almost every one has an opinion. Some people like Clive Thompson feel that technology is pushing literacy in new exciting directions. Where others like Sven Birkerts feel that “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the deep and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical conscience.” (Birkerts 32) What he basically says here is that we are losing depth and wisdom, because of new conveniences technology offers. I wonder if technology is doing what Birkerts suggest (loss of wisdom) to people’s social lives? Maybe social interaction and communication skills are becoming less important with the new ease of technology, making peoples social and communication skills shallower and less meaningful.
Texting and chat rooms are now a huge form of communication. With cell phones people are now able to carry on conversations from almost anywhere, at any distance and at any time. This seems like it would be a good thing. First it makes communication much more efficient, allows for more social interaction, and can promote relationships. But I wonder if it really is hurting instead of helping. Texting is now more common than phone calls; it’s quicker and allows people to hide behind text. Where people once had to practice carrying on real life conversations, texting offers relief from possible awkward situations. If something uncomfortable comes up, you just stop texting; you don’t have to try ending the conversation. This encourages immature behavior and shallow interaction.
Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notices a developing trend caused by the Web, “The more they (literate types) use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” (Carr par. 5) He is saying that the ease of sites like Google and Spark Notes is making reading for extended periods of time harder and harder. It seems to me that this same principle may be true for communication. Like skimming over different texts, you can skim over different conversations in chat rooms, never fully committed to one. This possibly leading to weak skills on carrying on lengthy talks, similar to reading long books or articles. Carr suggests that this inability to read leads to stupidity (hence the title). I wonder if these chat rooms could do the same? If people rarely carry on in deep conversions how could they develop vertical thinking? Yes, personal reflection and resonance is a big key to gaining wisdom, but without others to bounce ideas off wisdom is hard to grasp.
Another more apparent way technology (primarily Texting and chat rooms) is hurting us is just the content of the conversations carried on. Particularly true with teenagers, the conversations revolve around shallow self-center garbage. Since they have access to this all the time there is little effort put forth to have a meaningful talk. When this technology was not around, people had to either write a letter, or call a person up. The only way you would do this is if you truly had something of importance or meaning. You wouldn’t write a letter to a friend saying you were just “hanging ‘round doin’ nothing.” Technology has made communication something that you do when your bored, just to entertain, not gain depth.
One of the biggest things that annoys me with sites like Face Book and Myspace is that it allows you to have friends and a “social life” with out ever leaving you computer. I know lots of people with hundreds of on-line friends, but they don’t know half of them. They just like the idea that they are popular. I personally don’t partake in these sites. I think that to have a social life you must go out and do stuff with others, not just sit around blabbering to people how bored you are. With out real life interaction I find it hard to see how you can call these on-line friends true friends. Relationships are built off of past experiences together. This is hard to accomplish on-line, some people manage to meet on-line, get engaged on-line and first see each other on their wedding day. I don’t know the statistics but I am sure they don’t have the longest marriages out there. Although these sites can help spark relationships, true relationships occur off the computer.
I must admit however, that these sites do offer some good. They can help people’s social lives, but if only used correctly. The way I see how to use these site appropriately is to do two things, first use it to spark relationships. You can meet lots of people on web sites (like E Harmony a dating site), but you don’t continue your relationship on the site you go out and get to know them in real life. The other way it can be used for healthy relationships is by carrying on an already established relationship. If you already know someone well then its easier to have meaningful conversations, because you know them. But relationships based around the computer can never be strong. Another way that sites offer good is to enable far away relatives or friends to communicate with each other. These sites can make you feel a lot closer to far away relatives and friends because you can carry on conversations whenever you want with them. The big key to using this technology, like almost anything, is moderation.
Chat rooms and texting from every angle I look seem to hurt people’s social, and communication skills. These sites promote easy escape from awkward situations, encourage skimming of conversations that ultimately leads to poor communication skills, let people blabber on about them selves, reinforcing immature habits, and also kill true social lives. Avoiding bias, I agree that these sites are not all bad. They help spark, and carry on established relationships. But without the proper usage of this new technology you can do a lot more harm than good.
Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. "The Owl Has Flown." 1994. Making Sense: Essays on Art, Science, and Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 28-34. Print.
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid." The Atlantic July-Aug. 2008. The Atlantic Wire, July 2008. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Works cited added
Luke Buehrer Out of Class Essay #2
1st Draft
No one argues that the world has changed drastically in the past decade with the rise of technology. When technology comes up, almost every one has an opinion. Some people like Clive Thompson feel that technology is pushing literacy in new exciting directions. Where others like Sven Birkerts feel that “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the deep and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical conscience.” (Birkerts 32) What he basically says here is that we are losing depth and wisdom, because of new conveniences technology offers. I wonder if technology is doing what Birkerts suggest (loss of wisdom) to people’s social lives? Maybe social interaction and communication skills are becoming less important with the new ease of technology, making peoples social and communication skills shallower and less meaningful.
Texting and chat rooms are now a huge form of communication. With cell phones people are now able to carry on conversations from almost anywhere, at any distance and at any time. This seems like it would be a good thing. First it makes communication much more efficient, allows for more social interaction, and can promote relationships. But I wonder if it really is hurting instead of helping. Texting is now more common than phone calls; it’s quicker and allows people to hide behind text. Where people once had to practice carrying on real life conversations, texting offers relief from possible awkward situations. If something uncomfortable comes up, you just stop texting; you don’t have to try ending the conversation. This encourages immature behavior and shallow interaction.Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notices a developing trend caused by the Web, “The more they (literate types) use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” (Carr par. 5) He is saying that the ease of sites like Google and Spark Notes is making reading for extended periods of time harder and harder. It seems to me that this same principle may be true for communication. Like skimming over different texts, you can skim over different conversations in chat rooms, never fully committed to one. This possibly leading to weak skills on carrying on lengthy talks, similar to reading long books or articles. Carr suggests that this inability to read leads to stupidity (hence the title). I wonder if these chat rooms could do the same? If people rarely carry on in deep conversions how could they develop vertical thinking? Yes, personal reflection and resonance is a big key to gaining wisdom, but without others to bounce ideas off wisdom is hard to grasp.
Another more apparent way technology (primarily Texting and chat rooms) is hurting us is just the content of the conversations carried on. Particularly true with teenagers, the conversations revolve around shallow self-center garbage. Since they have access to this all the time there is little effort put forth to have a meaningful talk. When this technology was not around, people had to either write a letter, or call a person up. The only way you would do this is if you truly had something of importance or meaning. You wouldn’t write a letter to a friend saying you were just “hanging ‘round doin’ nothing.” Technology has made communication something that you do when your bored, just to entertain, not gain depth.
One of the biggest things that annoys me with sites like Face Book and Myspace is that it allows you to have friends and a “social life” with out ever leaving you computer. I know lots of people with hundreds of on-line friends, but they don’t know half of them. They just like the idea that they are popular. I personally don’t partake in these sites. I think that to have a social life you must go out and do stuff with others, not just sit around blabbering to people how bored you are. With out real life interaction I find it hard to see how you can call these on-line friends true friends. Relationships are built off of past experiences together. This is hard to accomplish on-line, some people manage to meet on-line, get engaged on-line and first see each other on their wedding day. I don’t know the statistics but I am sure they don’t have the longest marriages out there. Although these sites can help spark relationships, true relationships occur off the computer.
Chat rooms and texting from every angle I look seem to hurt people’s social, and communication skills. These sites promote easy escape from awkward situations, encourage skimming of conversations that ultimately leads to poor communication skills, let people blabber on about them selves, reinforcing immature habits, and also kill true social lives. These sites really just add up to a lot of dumb talk.
Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. "The Owl Has Flown." 1994. Making Sense: Essays on Art, Science, and Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 28-34. Print.
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid." The Atlantic July-Aug. 2008. The Atlantic Wire, July 2008. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.
1st Draft
No one argues that the world has changed drastically in the past decade with the rise of technology. When technology comes up, almost every one has an opinion. Some people like Clive Thompson feel that technology is pushing literacy in new exciting directions. Where others like Sven Birkerts feel that “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the deep and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical conscience.” (Birkerts 32) What he basically says here is that we are losing depth and wisdom, because of new conveniences technology offers. I wonder if technology is doing what Birkerts suggest (loss of wisdom) to people’s social lives? Maybe social interaction and communication skills are becoming less important with the new ease of technology, making peoples social and communication skills shallower and less meaningful.
Texting and chat rooms are now a huge form of communication. With cell phones people are now able to carry on conversations from almost anywhere, at any distance and at any time. This seems like it would be a good thing. First it makes communication much more efficient, allows for more social interaction, and can promote relationships. But I wonder if it really is hurting instead of helping. Texting is now more common than phone calls; it’s quicker and allows people to hide behind text. Where people once had to practice carrying on real life conversations, texting offers relief from possible awkward situations. If something uncomfortable comes up, you just stop texting; you don’t have to try ending the conversation. This encourages immature behavior and shallow interaction.Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notices a developing trend caused by the Web, “The more they (literate types) use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” (Carr par. 5) He is saying that the ease of sites like Google and Spark Notes is making reading for extended periods of time harder and harder. It seems to me that this same principle may be true for communication. Like skimming over different texts, you can skim over different conversations in chat rooms, never fully committed to one. This possibly leading to weak skills on carrying on lengthy talks, similar to reading long books or articles. Carr suggests that this inability to read leads to stupidity (hence the title). I wonder if these chat rooms could do the same? If people rarely carry on in deep conversions how could they develop vertical thinking? Yes, personal reflection and resonance is a big key to gaining wisdom, but without others to bounce ideas off wisdom is hard to grasp.
Another more apparent way technology (primarily Texting and chat rooms) is hurting us is just the content of the conversations carried on. Particularly true with teenagers, the conversations revolve around shallow self-center garbage. Since they have access to this all the time there is little effort put forth to have a meaningful talk. When this technology was not around, people had to either write a letter, or call a person up. The only way you would do this is if you truly had something of importance or meaning. You wouldn’t write a letter to a friend saying you were just “hanging ‘round doin’ nothing.” Technology has made communication something that you do when your bored, just to entertain, not gain depth.
One of the biggest things that annoys me with sites like Face Book and Myspace is that it allows you to have friends and a “social life” with out ever leaving you computer. I know lots of people with hundreds of on-line friends, but they don’t know half of them. They just like the idea that they are popular. I personally don’t partake in these sites. I think that to have a social life you must go out and do stuff with others, not just sit around blabbering to people how bored you are. With out real life interaction I find it hard to see how you can call these on-line friends true friends. Relationships are built off of past experiences together. This is hard to accomplish on-line, some people manage to meet on-line, get engaged on-line and first see each other on their wedding day. I don’t know the statistics but I am sure they don’t have the longest marriages out there. Although these sites can help spark relationships, true relationships occur off the computer.
Chat rooms and texting from every angle I look seem to hurt people’s social, and communication skills. These sites promote easy escape from awkward situations, encourage skimming of conversations that ultimately leads to poor communication skills, let people blabber on about them selves, reinforcing immature habits, and also kill true social lives. These sites really just add up to a lot of dumb talk.
Works Cited
Birkerts, Sven. "The Owl Has Flown." 1994. Making Sense: Essays on Art, Science, and Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 28-34. Print.
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid." The Atlantic July-Aug. 2008. The Atlantic Wire, July 2008. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
peer reveiw #2
Luke Buehrer
Peer Review #2
Here is the summary of your paper, according to the way I saw (just to make sure you get what you want across). You say that the popular narrative says that technology helps create a Global Village. You argue however against it. You claim that first, we like to image that we have a Global Village, but only see stuff from a distance. That we don’t actually see the problems in the world. You also talk about the News impact on this. That in order to give viewers what they want, they give a filtered version of reality. This making for people being either unaware of the problems or in a state of denial.
You have a good start on your paper. I agree with your ideas, however there are some changes you might want to consider. First, not necessarily every one will agree with you, so you should avoid bias. Maybe you should include a paragraph that tells how technology can raise awareness of these issues or something like that. This will open minds of people with differing opinions. Another thing you might want to look at it your first citation. Although I like it, the teacher will possibly want a more complete “Citation Sandwich, ” so just maybe add after the citation what it means or how it relates to your paper. The second sentence in the second paragraph says, “We are scared of the truth because it is not pleasing to us” it might be good to include a couple of examples of how the truth is not pleasing.
You asked for help on finding more quotations. Since the topic you choose is only directly relevant to Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution you may need to try using other texts that aren’t as relevant and try to relate them to your topic. For example, you could use a quote like this from Sven Birtkert (The Owl Has Flown), “ The computer, our high speed accessing, storing, and sorting tool, appears as a godsend. It increasingly determines what kind of information we are willing to traffic; if something cannot be written in code and transmitted, it cannot be important.” You could use this to show how people like Americans sort through information on-line all the time, they throw away and ignore things that, like you said scare them and are not pleasing. Or you could just get more quotes from Lest We Think a Revolution is a Revolution, which might be easier and more relevant. Other than that I think this is a great start, just make sure that you try to be as balanced as possible to avoid readers from thinking your bias, get some good solid quotes and support claims with evidence.
Word Count 467
Peer Review #2
Here is the summary of your paper, according to the way I saw (just to make sure you get what you want across). You say that the popular narrative says that technology helps create a Global Village. You argue however against it. You claim that first, we like to image that we have a Global Village, but only see stuff from a distance. That we don’t actually see the problems in the world. You also talk about the News impact on this. That in order to give viewers what they want, they give a filtered version of reality. This making for people being either unaware of the problems or in a state of denial.
You have a good start on your paper. I agree with your ideas, however there are some changes you might want to consider. First, not necessarily every one will agree with you, so you should avoid bias. Maybe you should include a paragraph that tells how technology can raise awareness of these issues or something like that. This will open minds of people with differing opinions. Another thing you might want to look at it your first citation. Although I like it, the teacher will possibly want a more complete “Citation Sandwich, ” so just maybe add after the citation what it means or how it relates to your paper. The second sentence in the second paragraph says, “We are scared of the truth because it is not pleasing to us” it might be good to include a couple of examples of how the truth is not pleasing.
You asked for help on finding more quotations. Since the topic you choose is only directly relevant to Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution you may need to try using other texts that aren’t as relevant and try to relate them to your topic. For example, you could use a quote like this from Sven Birtkert (The Owl Has Flown), “ The computer, our high speed accessing, storing, and sorting tool, appears as a godsend. It increasingly determines what kind of information we are willing to traffic; if something cannot be written in code and transmitted, it cannot be important.” You could use this to show how people like Americans sort through information on-line all the time, they throw away and ignore things that, like you said scare them and are not pleasing. Or you could just get more quotes from Lest We Think a Revolution is a Revolution, which might be easier and more relevant. Other than that I think this is a great start, just make sure that you try to be as balanced as possible to avoid readers from thinking your bias, get some good solid quotes and support claims with evidence.
Word Count 467
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Out of class #2
Luke Buehrer
Out of Class Essay #2
1st Draft
Dumb Talk
No one argues that the world has changed drastically in the past decade with the rise of technology. When technology comes up, almost every one has an opinion. Some people like Clive Thompson feels that technology is pushing literacy in new exciting directions. Where others like Sven Birkerts feels that “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical conscience.” What he basically says here is that we are losing depth and wisdom, because of new conveniences technology offers. I wonder if technology is doing what Birkerts suggest (loss of wisdom) to peoples social lives? Maybe social interaction and communication skills are becoming less important with the new ease of technology, making peoples social and communication skills shallower and less meaningful.
Texting and chat rooms are now a huge form of communication. With cell phones people are now able to carry on conversations from almost anywhere, at any distance and at any time. This seems like it would be a good thing. First it makes communication much more efficient, allows for more social interaction, and can promote relationships. But I wonder if it really is hurting instead of helping. Texting is now more common than phone calls, it’s quicker and allows people to hide behind text. Where people once had to practice carrying on real life conversations, texting offers relief from possible awkward situations. If something uncomfortable comes up, you just stop texting; you don’t have to try ending the conversation. This encourages immature behavior and shallow interaction.
Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notices a developing trend caused by the Web, “The more they (literate types) use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” He is saying that the ease of sites like Google and Spark Notes is making reading for extended periods of time harder and harder. It seems to me that this same principle may be true for communication. Like skimming over different texts, you can skim over different conversations in chat rooms, never fully committed to one. This possibly leading to weak skills on carrying on lengthy talks, similar to reading long books or articles. Carr suggests that this inability to read leads to stupidity (hence the title). I wonder if these chat rooms could do the same? If people rarely carry on in deep conversions how could they develop vertical thinking? Yes, personal reflection and resonance is a big key to gaining wisdom, but without others to bounce ideas off wisdom is hard to grasp.
Another more apparent way technology (primarily Texting and chat rooms) is hurting us is just the content of the conversations carried on. Particularly true with teenagers, the conversations revolve around shallow self-center garbage. Since they have access to this all the time there is little effort put forth to have a meaningful talk. When this technology was not around, people had to either write a letter, or call a person up. The only way you would do this is if you truly had something of importance or meaning. You wouldn’t write a letter to a friend saying you were just “hanging ‘round doin’ nothing.” Technology has made communication something that you do when your bored, just to entertain, not gain depth.
One of the biggest things that annoys me with sites like Face Book and Myspace is that it allows you to have friends and a “social life” with out ever leaving you computer. I know lots of people with hundreds of on-line friends, but they don’t know half of them. They just like the idea that they are popular. I personally don’t partake in these sites. I think that to have a social life you must go out and do stuff with others, not just sit around blabbering to people how bored you are. With out real life interaction I find it hard to see how you can call these on-line friends true friends. Relationships are built off of past experiences together. This is hard to accomplish on-line, some people manage to meet on-line, get engaged on-line and first see each other on their wedding day. I don’t know the statistics but I am sure they don’t have the longest marriages out there. Although these sites can help spark relationships, true relationships occur off the computer.
Chat rooms and texting from every angle I look, seem to hurt people social, and communication skill. These sites promote easy escape from awkward situations, encourage skimming of conversations that ultimately leads to poor communication skills, let people blabber on about them selves, reinforcing immature habits, and also kill true social lives. These sites really just add up to a lot of dumb talk.
Out of Class Essay #2
1st Draft
Dumb Talk
No one argues that the world has changed drastically in the past decade with the rise of technology. When technology comes up, almost every one has an opinion. Some people like Clive Thompson feels that technology is pushing literacy in new exciting directions. Where others like Sven Birkerts feels that “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical conscience.” What he basically says here is that we are losing depth and wisdom, because of new conveniences technology offers. I wonder if technology is doing what Birkerts suggest (loss of wisdom) to peoples social lives? Maybe social interaction and communication skills are becoming less important with the new ease of technology, making peoples social and communication skills shallower and less meaningful.
Texting and chat rooms are now a huge form of communication. With cell phones people are now able to carry on conversations from almost anywhere, at any distance and at any time. This seems like it would be a good thing. First it makes communication much more efficient, allows for more social interaction, and can promote relationships. But I wonder if it really is hurting instead of helping. Texting is now more common than phone calls, it’s quicker and allows people to hide behind text. Where people once had to practice carrying on real life conversations, texting offers relief from possible awkward situations. If something uncomfortable comes up, you just stop texting; you don’t have to try ending the conversation. This encourages immature behavior and shallow interaction.
Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” notices a developing trend caused by the Web, “The more they (literate types) use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” He is saying that the ease of sites like Google and Spark Notes is making reading for extended periods of time harder and harder. It seems to me that this same principle may be true for communication. Like skimming over different texts, you can skim over different conversations in chat rooms, never fully committed to one. This possibly leading to weak skills on carrying on lengthy talks, similar to reading long books or articles. Carr suggests that this inability to read leads to stupidity (hence the title). I wonder if these chat rooms could do the same? If people rarely carry on in deep conversions how could they develop vertical thinking? Yes, personal reflection and resonance is a big key to gaining wisdom, but without others to bounce ideas off wisdom is hard to grasp.
Another more apparent way technology (primarily Texting and chat rooms) is hurting us is just the content of the conversations carried on. Particularly true with teenagers, the conversations revolve around shallow self-center garbage. Since they have access to this all the time there is little effort put forth to have a meaningful talk. When this technology was not around, people had to either write a letter, or call a person up. The only way you would do this is if you truly had something of importance or meaning. You wouldn’t write a letter to a friend saying you were just “hanging ‘round doin’ nothing.” Technology has made communication something that you do when your bored, just to entertain, not gain depth.
One of the biggest things that annoys me with sites like Face Book and Myspace is that it allows you to have friends and a “social life” with out ever leaving you computer. I know lots of people with hundreds of on-line friends, but they don’t know half of them. They just like the idea that they are popular. I personally don’t partake in these sites. I think that to have a social life you must go out and do stuff with others, not just sit around blabbering to people how bored you are. With out real life interaction I find it hard to see how you can call these on-line friends true friends. Relationships are built off of past experiences together. This is hard to accomplish on-line, some people manage to meet on-line, get engaged on-line and first see each other on their wedding day. I don’t know the statistics but I am sure they don’t have the longest marriages out there. Although these sites can help spark relationships, true relationships occur off the computer.
Chat rooms and texting from every angle I look, seem to hurt people social, and communication skill. These sites promote easy escape from awkward situations, encourage skimming of conversations that ultimately leads to poor communication skills, let people blabber on about them selves, reinforcing immature habits, and also kill true social lives. These sites really just add up to a lot of dumb talk.
Monday, February 22, 2010
#6
Luke Buehrer
Reading Response #6
Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution, by Cynthia L. Selfe, focuses on different narratives that Americans have made up about technology. “Like most Americans, however, even though educators have made these adaptations, we remain decidedly undecided about technology and change.” What Selfe is basically saying here is that when it comes to technology, we have feel that technology is both good, and bad, so we are undecided, and have little opinion feeling that it is either great or horrible.
This claim that Selfe brings does not represent Americans the way I see it. The way she states her claim (although it sounds nice) makes every one seem like they have no opinions on technology. I know for my self, and others this is not the case. There are people that believe that technology is the greatest thing ever, and that it will solve all the worlds’ problems. There are those that think that technology, especially the Internet, which has brought nothing but hurt, and bad things. People believe that technology is killing literacy, destroying depth and leading to a shallow world, while at the same time people state that this is simply a paradigm shift in literacy, and that it is bringing us back to the age of reason and augment, the age of the Ancient Greeks (A New Literacy, Thompson). People think it is hurting social lives, because all you do is sit and chat back to each other, never going out side. While still others claim it has helped their social life, they now have hundreds of on-line friends. I personally think that technology isn’t as good as lots make it out to be. I find no satisfaction wasting hours on end chatting with on-line friends. I don’t believe that technology is going to make the world a better place, maybe faster and more efficient, but not help where we really need it.
Selfe’s statement on what Americans think of technology is quite simply wrong. You probably have an opinion of technology and so do almost all Americans. The opinions vary from extremely against to very for it. Selfe over oversimplifies our views in to one single view, which is definitely not the case. A better way to communicate this message would be “Americans have many opinions for and against technology” not “Decidedly undecided.” This over simplification could turn off readers to her ideas, which is the last thing you want.
Reading Response #6
Lest We Think the Revolution is a Revolution, by Cynthia L. Selfe, focuses on different narratives that Americans have made up about technology. “Like most Americans, however, even though educators have made these adaptations, we remain decidedly undecided about technology and change.” What Selfe is basically saying here is that when it comes to technology, we have feel that technology is both good, and bad, so we are undecided, and have little opinion feeling that it is either great or horrible.
This claim that Selfe brings does not represent Americans the way I see it. The way she states her claim (although it sounds nice) makes every one seem like they have no opinions on technology. I know for my self, and others this is not the case. There are people that believe that technology is the greatest thing ever, and that it will solve all the worlds’ problems. There are those that think that technology, especially the Internet, which has brought nothing but hurt, and bad things. People believe that technology is killing literacy, destroying depth and leading to a shallow world, while at the same time people state that this is simply a paradigm shift in literacy, and that it is bringing us back to the age of reason and augment, the age of the Ancient Greeks (A New Literacy, Thompson). People think it is hurting social lives, because all you do is sit and chat back to each other, never going out side. While still others claim it has helped their social life, they now have hundreds of on-line friends. I personally think that technology isn’t as good as lots make it out to be. I find no satisfaction wasting hours on end chatting with on-line friends. I don’t believe that technology is going to make the world a better place, maybe faster and more efficient, but not help where we really need it.
Selfe’s statement on what Americans think of technology is quite simply wrong. You probably have an opinion of technology and so do almost all Americans. The opinions vary from extremely against to very for it. Selfe over oversimplifies our views in to one single view, which is definitely not the case. A better way to communicate this message would be “Americans have many opinions for and against technology” not “Decidedly undecided.” This over simplification could turn off readers to her ideas, which is the last thing you want.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
#5
Luke Buehrer
February 5, 2010
Reading Response #5
The video “Growing Up Online”, produced and directed by Rachel Dretzin and John Maggio, brings up many issues and topics surrounding the Internet. Part one of the video revolves around the how computers have became a major part of many people’s lives, especially teens. Greg, an average American teen puts it this was, “If I were to disconnect now I would probably sit in this chair for the rest of the night, I wouldn’t know what to do with my self. You need to have the Internet on to talk to your friends, cause everybody uses it, its like a currency. If you don’t use it you’re going to be at the loss”. Part two focuses on the classroom and how the education system is changing due to this technology. Part three is about how the Internet helps teens try new identities and find them selves. Part four talks about parents being over protective because of all the hype in the media taking about predators, and how it is affecting relationships between parents and their kids. Part five concentrates on how teens hide their on-line world from their parents. Some teens lead secret lives; others hide what they are doing from their parents raising suspicions. Part six revolves around cyberbullying and its harmful affects. Some kids committing suicide with no signs of it coming. Part seven is about the teen’s graduations, becoming adults, and both them and their parents coming to terms. The parents’ realizing it isn’t all-bad, and the teens seeing there is more to life.
I personally have little use for the Internet. I only use it for shopping (good deals on stuff), and learning to do stuff with my hands on sites like Instructables. I rarely use it for communication, and socializing. I hate talking back and forth on line, it is very hard to have real conversations and seems less personal. I have there fore came to the conclusion that there is no need for the Internet. I realize this is a big claim but hopefully I can show you why. For example, before the Ipod you still listened to music. You thought CD’s were great and you were satisfied with that. But as soon as the Ipod came, a new convenience came out and CD’s lost there appeal. This is true with all technology. People didn’t just stare at the wall in their chair hoping that one day someone would invent something that would make sitting for hours more fun. No, they went out and enjoyed life, hung out with their friends, had passions and had just as rich if not richer a life than we do now with the Internet. Back then, people weren’t afraid to get dirty, sweat and earn a honest living. Today technical trades are looked at as jobs for people that can’t think, can’t work their way up to have a clean desk job, (I must admit this may be slightly bias because I’m in the trades). It just seems to me that more work, and product gets accomplished off the computer. I realize that the Internet has made things more efficient and fast paced, but why do we need that? If life worked for thousands of years with out this technology, why do we need it now? It just makes life more stressful, fast paced with a need for success, while losing what really is important in life.
February 5, 2010
Reading Response #5
The video “Growing Up Online”, produced and directed by Rachel Dretzin and John Maggio, brings up many issues and topics surrounding the Internet. Part one of the video revolves around the how computers have became a major part of many people’s lives, especially teens. Greg, an average American teen puts it this was, “If I were to disconnect now I would probably sit in this chair for the rest of the night, I wouldn’t know what to do with my self. You need to have the Internet on to talk to your friends, cause everybody uses it, its like a currency. If you don’t use it you’re going to be at the loss”. Part two focuses on the classroom and how the education system is changing due to this technology. Part three is about how the Internet helps teens try new identities and find them selves. Part four talks about parents being over protective because of all the hype in the media taking about predators, and how it is affecting relationships between parents and their kids. Part five concentrates on how teens hide their on-line world from their parents. Some teens lead secret lives; others hide what they are doing from their parents raising suspicions. Part six revolves around cyberbullying and its harmful affects. Some kids committing suicide with no signs of it coming. Part seven is about the teen’s graduations, becoming adults, and both them and their parents coming to terms. The parents’ realizing it isn’t all-bad, and the teens seeing there is more to life.
I personally have little use for the Internet. I only use it for shopping (good deals on stuff), and learning to do stuff with my hands on sites like Instructables. I rarely use it for communication, and socializing. I hate talking back and forth on line, it is very hard to have real conversations and seems less personal. I have there fore came to the conclusion that there is no need for the Internet. I realize this is a big claim but hopefully I can show you why. For example, before the Ipod you still listened to music. You thought CD’s were great and you were satisfied with that. But as soon as the Ipod came, a new convenience came out and CD’s lost there appeal. This is true with all technology. People didn’t just stare at the wall in their chair hoping that one day someone would invent something that would make sitting for hours more fun. No, they went out and enjoyed life, hung out with their friends, had passions and had just as rich if not richer a life than we do now with the Internet. Back then, people weren’t afraid to get dirty, sweat and earn a honest living. Today technical trades are looked at as jobs for people that can’t think, can’t work their way up to have a clean desk job, (I must admit this may be slightly bias because I’m in the trades). It just seems to me that more work, and product gets accomplished off the computer. I realize that the Internet has made things more efficient and fast paced, but why do we need that? If life worked for thousands of years with out this technology, why do we need it now? It just makes life more stressful, fast paced with a need for success, while losing what really is important in life.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
peer reveiw
Luke Buehrer
Peer Review Letter
Your essay brought up good points. Both of our essays are similar, like the subject and our opinions. We both think that technology has some benefits and some cons that effect wisdom and depth. Over all the essay was pretty good, you had good ideas and quotes. The biggest thing I saw needing work was just the flow. For example, the last paragraph you say, “If this does not happen, and does not happen soon…” The second “does not happen” is a bit redundant. I would change it to, “If this does not happen, and soon…” that would just help the reader continue a good flow. Another example of this is the introduction to the first quote. You said, “ Sven Birkerts once said in his essay “The Owl has Flown” that…” This could simply be said, “Sven Birkerts, author of “The Owl Has Flown” said…” This is a shorter intro that gets the same message across and helps with the flow. Another thing that I noticed is that you started off saying that technology helps and hurts, but through out the essay it seemed like you focused more on how it hurts than helps. There is two things that you could do about this, first you could take the side of technology hurting wisdom and depth, removing how it helps and going into more detail how it hurts. Or you could add more on how technology helps and have a more balanced view, this may make you look less bias and open the readers mind to receive your ideas. Another thing to consider (and I know my essay has just as much of this as yours) is the word “We”. I underlined all the spots where “we” was. Just make sure that you identify who “We” is, that way the reader won’t be turned off if you misrepresent him/her. There are some spots where you could go into a little more detail. Like when you say, “A person could argue that as technology grows, it is destroying the wisdoms that once were considered more precious than life”. Although I agree with this statement many readers may not or want to know why you think that. So it could use a better explanation why you think that, big statements not backed up can make you lose your credibility. It may also be nice to say how much you use technology, just to give the reader an idea what perspective you have on the subject. The last little thing I noticed was that you didn’t have a conclusion paragraph. You did sum this up but it was part of the third paragraph. I would just start a new paragraph where it says, “So in the end”, and then maybe add a bit more to the conclusion. This is a great first draft; you have a lot of good ideas. Just work on the flow, try to represent both sides or pick one strongly, work on “We”. And go into more detail on your main accusations, to increase credibility. With this you should have a pretty solid essay.
Peer Review Letter
Your essay brought up good points. Both of our essays are similar, like the subject and our opinions. We both think that technology has some benefits and some cons that effect wisdom and depth. Over all the essay was pretty good, you had good ideas and quotes. The biggest thing I saw needing work was just the flow. For example, the last paragraph you say, “If this does not happen, and does not happen soon…” The second “does not happen” is a bit redundant. I would change it to, “If this does not happen, and soon…” that would just help the reader continue a good flow. Another example of this is the introduction to the first quote. You said, “ Sven Birkerts once said in his essay “The Owl has Flown” that…” This could simply be said, “Sven Birkerts, author of “The Owl Has Flown” said…” This is a shorter intro that gets the same message across and helps with the flow. Another thing that I noticed is that you started off saying that technology helps and hurts, but through out the essay it seemed like you focused more on how it hurts than helps. There is two things that you could do about this, first you could take the side of technology hurting wisdom and depth, removing how it helps and going into more detail how it hurts. Or you could add more on how technology helps and have a more balanced view, this may make you look less bias and open the readers mind to receive your ideas. Another thing to consider (and I know my essay has just as much of this as yours) is the word “We”. I underlined all the spots where “we” was. Just make sure that you identify who “We” is, that way the reader won’t be turned off if you misrepresent him/her. There are some spots where you could go into a little more detail. Like when you say, “A person could argue that as technology grows, it is destroying the wisdoms that once were considered more precious than life”. Although I agree with this statement many readers may not or want to know why you think that. So it could use a better explanation why you think that, big statements not backed up can make you lose your credibility. It may also be nice to say how much you use technology, just to give the reader an idea what perspective you have on the subject. The last little thing I noticed was that you didn’t have a conclusion paragraph. You did sum this up but it was part of the third paragraph. I would just start a new paragraph where it says, “So in the end”, and then maybe add a bit more to the conclusion. This is a great first draft; you have a lot of good ideas. Just work on the flow, try to represent both sides or pick one strongly, work on “We”. And go into more detail on your main accusations, to increase credibility. With this you should have a pretty solid essay.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Reading Response #3
In the paper The Owl Has Flown, Sven Birkerts goes over the idea that the modern day technologies and life styles has made for a loss in depth and wisdom. Birkerts says, “We are experiencing in our times a loss of depth—a loss, that is, of the very paradigm of depth. A sense of the seep and natural connectedness of things is a function of vertical consciousness.” This passage for the most part gets Birkets biggest point out, that our culture is becoming shallower and appreciating the ability for deep thought less.
An interesting thing is that when Birkets makes a good claim that technology is killing depth, Clive Thompson brings up equally legitimate contrary ideas. Clive Thompson wrote an article The New Literacy and in it he shows how this paradigm shift may be a good thing. Technology has increased the amount of text produced out side of the classroom significantly. This is because of chat rooms and web sites like face book and twitter. Thompson even argues that this technology has taken us back to the age of argument in ancient Grease. On the other hand Birkerts says that, “ We direct our energies to managing information. The computer, our high-speed, accessing, storing, and sorting tool, appears as a godsend. It increasingly determines what kind of information we are willing to traffic in…” He points out that all the information on-line gets to be too much, to the point where we no longer sit and think, but try sorting out the good from the bad.
Both sides bring up reasonable claims; I think that they both have some truth. I see how the Internet can be almost a cheat to get information, a way to know stuff with out having to think. It encourages shallow communication and pushes away time to sit and think. Thompson’s argument also is reasonable, the more you write the better you become. The better you are at writing the deeper you can become. Plus, every day people can get their ideas and opinions out, before the Internet getting you ideas out was nearly impossible unless you worked in the media or were an author.
In the end it is hard to know what is better, life before or after technology. It hurts by enabling bleat and shallow conversation and limited time for resonance. It makes education almost meaningless when in five seconds you can have an answer form your iphone. But it also has made writing a more commonly practiced thing that helps individual thought and idea to be shared and contemplated. But certainly technology has started one of the biggest paradigm shifts ever.
An interesting thing is that when Birkets makes a good claim that technology is killing depth, Clive Thompson brings up equally legitimate contrary ideas. Clive Thompson wrote an article The New Literacy and in it he shows how this paradigm shift may be a good thing. Technology has increased the amount of text produced out side of the classroom significantly. This is because of chat rooms and web sites like face book and twitter. Thompson even argues that this technology has taken us back to the age of argument in ancient Grease. On the other hand Birkerts says that, “ We direct our energies to managing information. The computer, our high-speed, accessing, storing, and sorting tool, appears as a godsend. It increasingly determines what kind of information we are willing to traffic in…” He points out that all the information on-line gets to be too much, to the point where we no longer sit and think, but try sorting out the good from the bad.
Both sides bring up reasonable claims; I think that they both have some truth. I see how the Internet can be almost a cheat to get information, a way to know stuff with out having to think. It encourages shallow communication and pushes away time to sit and think. Thompson’s argument also is reasonable, the more you write the better you become. The better you are at writing the deeper you can become. Plus, every day people can get their ideas and opinions out, before the Internet getting you ideas out was nearly impossible unless you worked in the media or were an author.
In the end it is hard to know what is better, life before or after technology. It hurts by enabling bleat and shallow conversation and limited time for resonance. It makes education almost meaningless when in five seconds you can have an answer form your iphone. But it also has made writing a more commonly practiced thing that helps individual thought and idea to be shared and contemplated. But certainly technology has started one of the biggest paradigm shifts ever.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Reading Response #2
Advertisements often don’t sell the product, but instead a good feeling that is than associated with the product. An excellent example of this is the new Black Berry commercial. The commercial follows a band as it writes and performs. It is accompanied by the song “All you need is love,” written by the Beatles but sung in this commercial by Grayson Matthews. It then ends with text saying, “Do what you love” followed by “Love what you do” And ends with “Black Berry.”
Unlike the Budweiser commercial that required a lot of cultural knowledge, the Black Berry commercial required li ttle. The Budweiser commercial was based around baseball, which really is only big in a couple countries. Where as the Black Berry commercial revolved around music and rock, a common thing around the world. So the target group in this commercial could be much larger than the Budweiser commercial.
The makers of this commercial new that Black Berry’s them selves are not terribly exciting, so they had to go for a different approach. They sold the views a good feeling, just as the Budweiser commercial did. The song “All you need is love,” not only is a great song to make you feel good, but was written by arguably the largest band ever. Almost any one knows this song, and that familiarity can almost manipulate the viewer into wanting the product, “I like this song, I must like the product.”
This commercial also supports the American Dream, Try hard and you can achieve what ever you want. The band starts off as a small garage band, being rejected by a producer (as far as I can tell), then after practicing a lot they make it big. This also gives the viewers a good feeling. Almost every American dreams of being a rock star at some point in their life. This shows that all you need is a little motivation and your dreams can come true. Then the commercial says, “Do what you love… … love what you do… …Black Berry.” After seeing something that inspiring brought to you by Black Berry, its hard not to want one, even though the commercial brings up no reason why you would want one.
Modern day commercials can be very manipulative on your feelings to sell a product. They try to make you feel good and show you things that you can relate to, and through in their product at the last minute to pursued you into buying the product.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twu3pLVI9D8
Unlike the Budweiser commercial that required a lot of cultural knowledge, the Black Berry commercial required li ttle. The Budweiser commercial was based around baseball, which really is only big in a couple countries. Where as the Black Berry commercial revolved around music and rock, a common thing around the world. So the target group in this commercial could be much larger than the Budweiser commercial.
The makers of this commercial new that Black Berry’s them selves are not terribly exciting, so they had to go for a different approach. They sold the views a good feeling, just as the Budweiser commercial did. The song “All you need is love,” not only is a great song to make you feel good, but was written by arguably the largest band ever. Almost any one knows this song, and that familiarity can almost manipulate the viewer into wanting the product, “I like this song, I must like the product.”
This commercial also supports the American Dream, Try hard and you can achieve what ever you want. The band starts off as a small garage band, being rejected by a producer (as far as I can tell), then after practicing a lot they make it big. This also gives the viewers a good feeling. Almost every American dreams of being a rock star at some point in their life. This shows that all you need is a little motivation and your dreams can come true. Then the commercial says, “Do what you love… … love what you do… …Black Berry.” After seeing something that inspiring brought to you by Black Berry, its hard not to want one, even though the commercial brings up no reason why you would want one.
Modern day commercials can be very manipulative on your feelings to sell a product. They try to make you feel good and show you things that you can relate to, and through in their product at the last minute to pursued you into buying the product.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twu3pLVI9D8
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
In Class Essay #1
Luke Buehrer
In Class Essay #1
Question #1
In the past decade technology has evolved and progressed more than ever before. With this new technology there has been new ways of communicating and simply doing every day life. The internet, it has changed almost every way we go about life, but now the question arises, “Is this new technology killing literacy.”
In the article “The New Literacy” by Clive Thompson, this question is pondered. As John Sutherland says, “Power point has replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into “bleak, bald, sad shorthand.”” But Andrea Lunsford thinks the contrary. She simply suggests that instead of destroying literacy, technology is merely changing it. One interesting thing Lunsford found was that the new generating is writing far more than the previous, because of the internet. All the on-line chat rooms and twitter up dates has encouraged kids to write, not only write, but sharing there opinions and enjoying it as well. She argues that the “New literacy” has taken literacy back to the Greek tradition of argument. And that writers today have to write to an audience, which makes them change their tone and technique in order to get there point across.
I personally don’t see it as black and white as Lunsford or Sutherland makes it seem. I think that the progression of technology has not only been a good thing but an awful thing as well. The way it is good is that it persuades kids and adults to write a lot. And the more you write the better you become. All these chat rooms allow people to get there ideas and belief much further than previously possible. This can lead to a boost in confidence and personal identity. And as Lunsford sees it, it has brought us back to the time of argument and thought. With this access to an easy audience people get to write on there passions and beliefs sometimes writing pages and pages on their own will. A decade ago, the only time you ever wrote so much was when you had a school assignment. Full of anxiety, you would just make up something that almost always you had no passion in. Writing with the internet seems like a hobby now not a chore.
There are also many ways technology has damaged literacy. It is hard not to agree with Sutherland at times when you log on to some site and all you see is self centered comments that have no deep thought process or self identity weaved in the text. Some times all you see is comments on some celebrity and “how I want to have her hair” or some shallow thing like that. With chat rooms it is also possible to loss your identity, (contrary to what I said before) wanting to fit in with the masses, people will go along with what ever idea seem to be the most popular, stuffing there beliefs and opinions aside. It is no secret that web sites like Face Book and My Space have many followers that are addicted to them. Some teenagers’ even adults will stare at the monitor for hours on end. You think the more you practice the better you become, but really, is that much good for you? Some people see Face Book and My Space as their social life. Theoretically, if you never saw a person face to face in you life, but had five hundred friends online would you still count that as a social life? I think that this technology is great (admittedly, I never use is) but there has to be a limit to how much people use it.
Like I said, technology is good and bad, helping and hurting literacy. It is pushing literacy in new exciting paths, bringing us back to the age of argument and intellect. But at the same time it is killing self identity, encouraging bleak, superficial conversations. Taking people away from reality, and replacing it with Face Book. In the end it is a great tool with limitless possibilities, but moderation is the key.
In Class Essay #1
Question #1
In the past decade technology has evolved and progressed more than ever before. With this new technology there has been new ways of communicating and simply doing every day life. The internet, it has changed almost every way we go about life, but now the question arises, “Is this new technology killing literacy.”
In the article “The New Literacy” by Clive Thompson, this question is pondered. As John Sutherland says, “Power point has replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into “bleak, bald, sad shorthand.”” But Andrea Lunsford thinks the contrary. She simply suggests that instead of destroying literacy, technology is merely changing it. One interesting thing Lunsford found was that the new generating is writing far more than the previous, because of the internet. All the on-line chat rooms and twitter up dates has encouraged kids to write, not only write, but sharing there opinions and enjoying it as well. She argues that the “New literacy” has taken literacy back to the Greek tradition of argument. And that writers today have to write to an audience, which makes them change their tone and technique in order to get there point across.
I personally don’t see it as black and white as Lunsford or Sutherland makes it seem. I think that the progression of technology has not only been a good thing but an awful thing as well. The way it is good is that it persuades kids and adults to write a lot. And the more you write the better you become. All these chat rooms allow people to get there ideas and belief much further than previously possible. This can lead to a boost in confidence and personal identity. And as Lunsford sees it, it has brought us back to the time of argument and thought. With this access to an easy audience people get to write on there passions and beliefs sometimes writing pages and pages on their own will. A decade ago, the only time you ever wrote so much was when you had a school assignment. Full of anxiety, you would just make up something that almost always you had no passion in. Writing with the internet seems like a hobby now not a chore.
There are also many ways technology has damaged literacy. It is hard not to agree with Sutherland at times when you log on to some site and all you see is self centered comments that have no deep thought process or self identity weaved in the text. Some times all you see is comments on some celebrity and “how I want to have her hair” or some shallow thing like that. With chat rooms it is also possible to loss your identity, (contrary to what I said before) wanting to fit in with the masses, people will go along with what ever idea seem to be the most popular, stuffing there beliefs and opinions aside. It is no secret that web sites like Face Book and My Space have many followers that are addicted to them. Some teenagers’ even adults will stare at the monitor for hours on end. You think the more you practice the better you become, but really, is that much good for you? Some people see Face Book and My Space as their social life. Theoretically, if you never saw a person face to face in you life, but had five hundred friends online would you still count that as a social life? I think that this technology is great (admittedly, I never use is) but there has to be a limit to how much people use it.
Like I said, technology is good and bad, helping and hurting literacy. It is pushing literacy in new exciting paths, bringing us back to the age of argument and intellect. But at the same time it is killing self identity, encouraging bleak, superficial conversations. Taking people away from reality, and replacing it with Face Book. In the end it is a great tool with limitless possibilities, but moderation is the key.
In Class Essay #1
Luke Buehrer
In Class Essay #1
Question #1
In the past decade technology has evolved and progressed more than ever before. With this new technology there has been new ways of communicating and simply doing every day life. The internet, it has changed almost every way we go about life, but now the question arises, “Is this new technology killing literacy.”
In the article “The New Literacy” by Clive Thompson, this question is pondered. As John Sutherland says, “Power point has replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into “bleak, bald, sad shorthand.”” But Andrea Lunsford thinks the contrary. She simply suggests that instead of destroying literacy, technology is merely changing it. One interesting thing Lunsford found was that the new generating is writing far more than the previous, because of the internet. All the on-line chat rooms and twitter up dates has encouraged kids to write, not only write, but sharing there opinions and enjoying it as well. She argues that the “New literacy” has taken literacy back to the Greek tradition of argument. And that writers today have to write to an audience, which makes them change their tone and technique in order to get there point across.
I personally don’t see it as black and white as Lunsford or Sutherland makes it seem. I think that the progression of technology has not only been a good thing but an awful thing as well. The way it is good is that it persuades kids and adults to write a lot. And the more you write the better you become. All these chat rooms allow people to get there ideas and belief much further than previously possible. This can lead to a boost in confidence and personal identity. And as Lunsford sees it, it has brought us back to the time of argument and thought. With this access to an easy audience people get to write on there passions and beliefs sometimes writing pages and pages on their own will. A decade ago, the only time you ever wrote so much was when you had a school assignment. Full of anxiety, you would just make up something that almost always you had no passion in. Writing with the internet seems like a hobby now not a chore.
There are also many ways technology has damaged literacy. It is hard not to agree with Sutherland at times when you log on to some site and all you see is self centered comments that have no deep thought process or self identity weaved in the text. Some times all you see is comments on some celebrity and “how I want to have her hair” or some shallow thing like that. With chat rooms it is also possible to loss your identity, (contrary to what I said before) wanting to fit in with the masses, people will go along with what ever idea seem to be the most popular, stuffing there beliefs and opinions aside. It is no secret that web sites like Face Book and My Space have many followers that are addicted to them. Some teenagers’ even adults will stare at the monitor for hours on end. You think the more you practice the better you become, but really, is that much good for you? Some people see Face Book and My Space as their social life. Theoretically, if you never saw a person face to face in you life, but had five hundred friends online would you still count that as a social life? I think that this technology is great (admittedly, I never use is) but there has to be a limit to how much people use it.
Like I said, technology is good and bad, helping and hurting literacy. It is pushing literacy in new exciting paths, bringing us back to the age of argument and intellect. But at the same time it is killing self identity, encouraging bleak, superficial conversations. Taking people away from reality, and replacing it with Face Book. In the end it is a great tool with limitless possibilities, but moderation is the key.
In Class Essay #1
Question #1
In the past decade technology has evolved and progressed more than ever before. With this new technology there has been new ways of communicating and simply doing every day life. The internet, it has changed almost every way we go about life, but now the question arises, “Is this new technology killing literacy.”
In the article “The New Literacy” by Clive Thompson, this question is pondered. As John Sutherland says, “Power point has replaced carefully crafted essays, and texting has dehydrated language into “bleak, bald, sad shorthand.”” But Andrea Lunsford thinks the contrary. She simply suggests that instead of destroying literacy, technology is merely changing it. One interesting thing Lunsford found was that the new generating is writing far more than the previous, because of the internet. All the on-line chat rooms and twitter up dates has encouraged kids to write, not only write, but sharing there opinions and enjoying it as well. She argues that the “New literacy” has taken literacy back to the Greek tradition of argument. And that writers today have to write to an audience, which makes them change their tone and technique in order to get there point across.
I personally don’t see it as black and white as Lunsford or Sutherland makes it seem. I think that the progression of technology has not only been a good thing but an awful thing as well. The way it is good is that it persuades kids and adults to write a lot. And the more you write the better you become. All these chat rooms allow people to get there ideas and belief much further than previously possible. This can lead to a boost in confidence and personal identity. And as Lunsford sees it, it has brought us back to the time of argument and thought. With this access to an easy audience people get to write on there passions and beliefs sometimes writing pages and pages on their own will. A decade ago, the only time you ever wrote so much was when you had a school assignment. Full of anxiety, you would just make up something that almost always you had no passion in. Writing with the internet seems like a hobby now not a chore.
There are also many ways technology has damaged literacy. It is hard not to agree with Sutherland at times when you log on to some site and all you see is self centered comments that have no deep thought process or self identity weaved in the text. Some times all you see is comments on some celebrity and “how I want to have her hair” or some shallow thing like that. With chat rooms it is also possible to loss your identity, (contrary to what I said before) wanting to fit in with the masses, people will go along with what ever idea seem to be the most popular, stuffing there beliefs and opinions aside. It is no secret that web sites like Face Book and My Space have many followers that are addicted to them. Some teenagers’ even adults will stare at the monitor for hours on end. You think the more you practice the better you become, but really, is that much good for you? Some people see Face Book and My Space as their social life. Theoretically, if you never saw a person face to face in you life, but had five hundred friends online would you still count that as a social life? I think that this technology is great (admittedly, I never use is) but there has to be a limit to how much people use it.
Like I said, technology is good and bad, helping and hurting literacy. It is pushing literacy in new exciting paths, bringing us back to the age of argument and intellect. But at the same time it is killing self identity, encouraging bleak, superficial conversations. Taking people away from reality, and replacing it with Face Book. In the end it is a great tool with limitless possibilities, but moderation is the key.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Reading Response #1
Luke Buehrer
Reading response #1
In his recent work, “A New Literacy,” Clive Thompson brings up shows two points of view on the subject of technology influencing literacy. According to John Sutherland technology has turned our literacy into “bleak, bald short hand.” The other argument is that technology is bringing us back to the age of the Greeks, who used intellect and argument. Andrea Lunsford has found an increase of writing due to technology, and a new stirred passion.
I agree with parts of Thompson's article "The new literacy." Before technology writing outside of school was uncommon, unless, as Thompson says, "They got a job required producing text (like law advertising, or media)." This in turn made the average person less literate, simply because they didn't need to use it in their daily life. As technology evolved and the Internet became a norm, people started using it for socializing. Inevitably to communicate writing had to take place. Andrea Lunsford found that 38% of students writing takes place outside of the classroom, most likely on social sites like Face Book and Twitter. Technology has also helped people get their ideas out in a place that many people can see and comment on, this has many beneficial factors. First, sharing your opinion with others is a great way to find self-identity, and builds up your confidence. Second, it let’s people consider new ideas that they would never thought about and can lead to many intellectual conversations.
With all this in mind, I agree that literacy is changing and possibly improving, however there are certain parts I tend to disagree with. Even though there is a lot more writing taking place, can social web sites really help literacy? When you log on and read what people have to say the majority are shallow, self-centered comments either about some celebrity or just random blabbering that really has no value at all. I admit that’s not true of all the postings, but still can Lunsford 38% really be counted as a positive thing? Another bad thing that could come from social web sites is people might just want a place to fit in. This could lead to people ignoring their beliefs to be friends with someone half way around the world. Also, it can be additive. This is no joke, I know people that spend more time a day on the computer than any thing else. I honestly find it hard to have a strong opinion on the matter because there are so many things to consider, and I never even use a computer for social stuff. But what I am certain of is that writing in my generation is immensely changed from my parent’s generation, because of technology.
If it is a good thing or a bad thing I not sure, technology has made writing a more commonly practiced skill that lets others share their personal opinions in creative ways, leading to great debate and conversation. While at the same time can be very shallow and unemotional rubbish.
Reading response #1
In his recent work, “A New Literacy,” Clive Thompson brings up shows two points of view on the subject of technology influencing literacy. According to John Sutherland technology has turned our literacy into “bleak, bald short hand.” The other argument is that technology is bringing us back to the age of the Greeks, who used intellect and argument. Andrea Lunsford has found an increase of writing due to technology, and a new stirred passion.
I agree with parts of Thompson's article "The new literacy." Before technology writing outside of school was uncommon, unless, as Thompson says, "They got a job required producing text (like law advertising, or media)." This in turn made the average person less literate, simply because they didn't need to use it in their daily life. As technology evolved and the Internet became a norm, people started using it for socializing. Inevitably to communicate writing had to take place. Andrea Lunsford found that 38% of students writing takes place outside of the classroom, most likely on social sites like Face Book and Twitter. Technology has also helped people get their ideas out in a place that many people can see and comment on, this has many beneficial factors. First, sharing your opinion with others is a great way to find self-identity, and builds up your confidence. Second, it let’s people consider new ideas that they would never thought about and can lead to many intellectual conversations.
With all this in mind, I agree that literacy is changing and possibly improving, however there are certain parts I tend to disagree with. Even though there is a lot more writing taking place, can social web sites really help literacy? When you log on and read what people have to say the majority are shallow, self-centered comments either about some celebrity or just random blabbering that really has no value at all. I admit that’s not true of all the postings, but still can Lunsford 38% really be counted as a positive thing? Another bad thing that could come from social web sites is people might just want a place to fit in. This could lead to people ignoring their beliefs to be friends with someone half way around the world. Also, it can be additive. This is no joke, I know people that spend more time a day on the computer than any thing else. I honestly find it hard to have a strong opinion on the matter because there are so many things to consider, and I never even use a computer for social stuff. But what I am certain of is that writing in my generation is immensely changed from my parent’s generation, because of technology.
If it is a good thing or a bad thing I not sure, technology has made writing a more commonly practiced skill that lets others share their personal opinions in creative ways, leading to great debate and conversation. While at the same time can be very shallow and unemotional rubbish.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
About me and my writing
Part 1:
This is my first class at Whatcom, I am going here to finish up my high school credits so i can graduate. Before this I was at BTC and got my AA in Building Construction Technologys. After I graduate I plan on working construction. I love working with my hands and hate using computers, so this is not to fun. When I am not in school I like mountain biking and Making stuff (usually in my shop).
Part 2:
I never write outside of school so my style would be what ever it needs to be to pass the class.
This is my first class at Whatcom, I am going here to finish up my high school credits so i can graduate. Before this I was at BTC and got my AA in Building Construction Technologys. After I graduate I plan on working construction. I love working with my hands and hate using computers, so this is not to fun. When I am not in school I like mountain biking and Making stuff (usually in my shop).
Part 2:
I never write outside of school so my style would be what ever it needs to be to pass the class.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)