Andrew Smith

1-27-13

Unit 1 Essay

          The world today is in a period of rapid growth. India, China, Bangladesh, and many other developing countries are growing at rates that have never been seen before. In just the last 50 years, the world population has doubled. Parallel to this remarkable influx of people is the rise of powerful technology, technology that is slowly and subtly undermining the intelligence and literacy of America. Ironically, while the ever-growing world population is threatening overpopulation and overcrowding – packing us tight like sardines – the technology spike is driving us further and further apart and into isolation. Social media, news, and games via the internet has led to an isolated youth, a youth that is forgetting how to operate some of the most basic daily functions.

          50 years ago, before there was an Internet and before there were social media outlets, communication from one to another was vastly different. Instead of sending e-mail or a text, one would pick up a pencil, some stationary from the local store and write a letter. It didn’t stop there, either. That letter had to be addressed and stamped before being taken to the post office. If two people wanted to talk, they could use a telephone, with two major exceptions. First, you would be attached to the wall by a curly cord that had a maximum length of maybe 15 feet. Second, you needed to actually know the number you were calling. There was no speed-dial, and you most certainly could not just click on someone’s name and magically be transferred. Communication was personal. Time and effort had to be put into seeing somebody simply because the technology that existed did not permit instant conversation between folk anywhere in the world.

          Nowadays, when I want to talk to someone I just need to pick up my cell phone and send a text. I don’t even actually have to open my mouth and speak audible words in order to communicate. While this would be fantastic if the human brain has developed to such a point where we could use telepathy to speak with one another, that is not the case. On the contrary, we have just used technology to manipulate the airwaves around us and send digital messages through a grid system at ultra-fast speeds. No longer must we stamp a letter and walk it over to the post office. From the seat of our couch, in front of our 60-inch Samsung flat screen LCD, eating a microwaveable Lean Cuisine, we can communicate with anyone in the world with our iPhones and our iMacs with high-speed dual 7.1 dual processors, all with crystal clear retina display. Great, right?

          You may say yes, all this technology is in fact wonderful. I, too, agree that this incredibly ease of communication and advancement of technology is a positive thing. But what happens when we’re outside the technological grid that allows for this state-of-the-art communication? What happens if the grid turns off? Can Western society make the transition back to a culture that does not thrive off of technological achievements? In the long-run, maybe. In the short-run, however, there would be a catastrophic collapse in communications.

          Our reliance on devices and gadgets has left us lazy and illiterate. What would have been thought of as common sense 50 years ago are now seen as archaic, unnecessary literary functions. Many people cannot read and navigate road maps because of GPS systems that are now stock in almost all vehicles. Even the simplest spelling is now done for us by spellcheckers. This technological phenomenon is reducing Western society’s literacy. In Hedges piece “America the Illiterate,” she presents that the general reading level of Americans has decreased from a 11^th or 12^th grade level to that of a 6th grader in the past 100 years. This drop in reading levels should not be ignored. Emphasis on getting children to school and reading sooner will help curtail that steep drop in literacy and reading level. Not only must we treat the symptoms, we must treat the source, as well. Hedges believes that America is fixed on instant gratification, regardless of whether or not there is meaning. I would agree with Hedges, and I believe that technology has led to such a position. We can pull up any new site on the internet and instantly read about whatever it is that grabs our attention. If it takes more than a few seconds to understand, it is no longer of importance. Technology, and the misuse of technology, is encouraging poor reading habits.

          Others would contend that this increase in technology has not led to such an epidemic of illiteracy. In Andrea Lunsford’s “The Semi-Literate Youth,” she explains how increased technology has not necessarily led to illiteracy, but a different type of literacy. She points to a study done on college-level papers that showed they amounts of errors made by the writer and found that in the past 25 years, the ratio of words to errors has not changed. While this may be true, the types of errors that are most frequent in today’s writing are “wrong-word” errors. A wrong-word error is when the computer takes your misspelled word and corrects it to a word that does not make sense in the context of the word. While this may seem like a minor issue, it speaks on a larger level. If a computer is correcting a word in the first place, it is misspelled; meaning people today are having trouble spelling. If the writer does not catch the error, then clearly proofreading was never done. If a paper was properly proofread, then the word “two” will never be mistaken for “to.” What this means is people are becoming so reliant on technology that they are becoming lazy and trusting a machine too much.

          So what is going to happen? Right now, it is hard to say. But it is clear that people are becoming more and more dependent on technology in order to go about their daily lives. This dependency is detracting from the greatest computer or piece of technology know to man, and that is the human brain. In recent years, however, engineers and scientists have discredited the brain, and developed artificial intelligences that are supposed to mimic the person. I’m not suggesting an I, Robot, like occurrence, but I do believe technology is taking over our everyday life. We have machines cook for us, read for us, turn off the lights for us. All of this is contributing to an overall dependency on technology, which in turn is making us dumber.

Blog Reflection

     Upon entering the blogosphere, I had few expectations as far as how successful my endeavor would be. Three weeks in, I have come to the understanding that blogs can be powerful tools for news outlets, yet still stand as a means of allowing anyone with an internet connection to spew useless information onto the web. While initially I found this to be detrimental to society, I have come to the realization that all I have to do is simply ignore the blogs which I find dumb. If I dont search for useless blogs, I won't find them.
     Working with this blog has been particularly easy, as long as the PioneerNet decides to turn itself on while I am trying to post. Blogger has made the blogging process incredibly accessible. With only a couple clicks of the mouse and keyboard, I am logged in and ready to post new entries to my blog. Last quarter, I was posting to blackboard discussions, which I now realize as being much more difficult as far as accessibility and user friendliness goes.
     Reading and writing on the web is a cultural phenomenon that has just began to emerge in the past 15 to 20 years. My opinions on this phenomenon have changed slightly during this blogging process in which I have embarked on. The are some incredible news sources which exist in the forms of blogs such as the Drudge report and the Huffington Post which I hd previously disregarded as just another blog. But with further examination, I have come to realize that these such posts are monitored and are edited. Knowing that I have missed out on these useful news sources, I do think that in the future I will look to them to stay current on recent events.

Lunsford and Scribner

     Literacy throughout the world is a difficult, if not impossible, word to define. While in one society being literate might constitue reading at a third grade level, in another literacy constitutes being able to decipher thousand word texts layered with dense language This difficulty of finding a definition for literacy that spans the globe is outlined in Scribner's "Literacy in Three Metaphors."While each one of her metaphors finds a definition for literacy, each one is also lacking important features. Literacy as adaption, for example, attempts to define literacy as simply as being able to perform the mundane actions of society and function successfully. This includes grocery shopping and reading street signs while driving. What this metaphor does not take into account is the fact that functions that are necessary in one society may be unnecessary in another. Societal and cultural differences influence literacy, which makes the definition of literacy impossible to find.
     Contrary to Hedges and Carr, who seem to have found a firm definition for the term, state that they believe overall literacy is declining, mainly due to the increase in technology such as the Internet and Google. What Lunsford brings to the table is that these forms of new media which are changing the way we interact with one another are only diversifying literacy, not harming it. Lunsford's studies have proven that students today are still able to write academically, despite the slang that is often used casually. And while many would say children today write with more errors, Lunsford proves this wrong, stating that the ration between words to errors has remained the same over the past 100 years.
     Personally, I am on the fence about whether or not new social media and the Internet are a positive or negative influence on literacy. Hedges and Carr make strong points that we are becoming an entertainment-based, instant gratification society which is in turn hurting are attention spans. Lunsford and Scribner would say this is just another form of literacy, and I agree as well. I believe our society's most pressing concerns still are the overall lack of education that inner-city children are receiving.

Carr and Hedges

     Nicholas Carr's article title "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" provides enlightenment on the negative effects of the increasingly technologic society that we live in. He contends that as the intelligence of programs being produced by Google continue to increase that the capability of Americans decreases. Carr has presented here an inverse relationship between the intelligence of technology and the intelligence of people. Carr also points out that "the human brain is almost infinitely malleable." The brain has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions." Carr believes that the dependency on the Internet has begun to reprogram our brains to become less attentive and "dumber." Even the educated writers and readers are having a difficult time being able to stay focused on long pieces of writing in the days Google and advertisements and pop-ups. In Hedges piece titled "America the Illiterate," he tackles the issue of the increasingly dumbed-down writing and reading levels of the American population. He points out that during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, the presidential candidates spoke at a level of that of a 11th or 12th grade student, while in the more recent Bush-Gore debates of 2000 the candidates spoke at a 6th grade level. Hedges points out that the decrease in reading levels is due to society becoming focused on instant-gratification and entertainment. Both Carr and Hedges point towards a higher level of technology being responsible for a the lower level of intelligence in the United States. I would have to agree with both of these writers. I also believe that the shift from print media to the Internet has created a lazy America. Rather than reading through the daily paper for news, people instead check mobile news apps every now and then and read only a paragraph or two for information.

What is Reading and Writing

     Reading and writing go hand in hand with each other. Reading cannot exist without writing, and writing cannot exist without reading. Writing is done for a purpose, and is always written for an intended audience. Even the most basic writing such as to-do lists or traffic signs is written for a purpose and an audience. All writing is meant to be read by someone. Like writing, reading also has a purpose. Reading can be done for enjoyment or informational purposes. Within the discipline of writing, many subgenres exist. There is journalism, creative writing, poetry, etc. Regardless of the type of writing, the purpose and intended audience is always there.

Andrew Sullivan's "Why I Blog"

After reading Andrew Sullivan's "Why I Blog," I have come to a better understanding as to why it is that people over the past decade or so have increasingly chosen to partake in blogging. While scholarly journals and newspapers and columns are subject to multiple layers of revisions and edits, blogging is instant and stream of consciousness. Because of the immediate nature of blogging and the ability to blog multiple times a day all while receiving criticism and feedback, Sullivan refers to blogging as "the least veiled of any forum in which a writer dares to himself." What I understand to be Sullivan's purpose for blogging is just this; blogging provides camaraderie between the writer and the reader, interaction that does not otherwise exist in other forms of published writing. Blogging is a method of holding personal conversations with people across the globe. The reactionary nature of many blog posts allows for the inclusion of emotion and opinion in writing that would be filtered out by editors. Sullivan speaks of such posts in his recollection of 9/11, when him and his blog followers spoke of the events occurring in real time. For Sullivan, blogging is the future of journalism. More people are given the opportunity to voice opinions and point of views on virtually any subject matter.

Creating my first blog

Creating a blog was a first for me. I have never had my own blog, nor have I ever followed a blog, and I even have a hard time recalling the last blog post that I read. I have never been into the whole idea of a blog, as I much rather prefer reading published news articles that have been through the editing process, so that I know what I am reading is a reputable piece of writing. In a nutshell, I consider myself an anti-blogger. This is nothing personal against blogs, but rather myself being an opponent to our society's increasing dependency on technology and my desire to live in simpler times without smartphones and hotspots, but this is neither here nor there. For the purpose of this class, however, I render the use of a blog necessary, and for reasons stated above I chose the most simple titles for my blog. I included my name so that my blog could be easily and readily identifiable to both my classmates and my professor. My overall opinion of blogs has yet to change. In fact, my opinions of blogs have only been reinforced. The incredible ease of creating an online journal in which one can spew his or her brash and close-minded opinions about current events and life to the entire world in a blink of the eye is astounding. In just minutes, from the time I created my blog until now, I myself have transformed from a blog virgin to a ranting blogger. I have to say I kind of enjoy it, as well. That's not to say I will ever blog outside this class assignment, but for the time being I can most certainly live with it.