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.
Monday, March 15, 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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)