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.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)