In this article, Nicholas Carr attempts to show the reader what the Internet is doing to our brains. Although I agree that the Internet is in fact changing our though process, I would not say it is making us stupid. The word "stupid" seems a bit harsh and unnecessary. I am assuming that this Nicholas Carr is an adult and he should be using a more sophisticated word. Just after reading the title, Mr. Carr has gotten onto my bad side. Reading deeper into the article, my initial thoughts did not change very much.
The interesting thing about this article is that the attention getter is a quote from a movie with a computer-gone-bad. Obviously this movie is a fictional movie, but this does not stop Carr from using it as a valid source of information. Yes, Nicholas, the idea of computers eventually taking over may be a valid one. No, Nicholas, you cannot base your claim for the amazing Google making us stupid based on a science fiction film.
Aside from my bitter attitude towards the writer, the article did successfully explain the evolution of our brains and how they react with the different technologies of the time. I know that I have troubles concentrating on long pieces of writing. The blame may or may not be on the Internet. As a teenager, I have essentially grown up with the internet, so I have not had much experience in a world without it. I assume the people pointed out in the first section of this article are older people, and have known a world without such advanced technologies. I can see how the Internet may seem to be an evil creature, sucking out all intentions of being smart and the yearning to read long books. But, my inability to concentrate is based more on my utter pickiness towards the things I read. Once I find something good, I can read it like there's no tomorrow. As a fellow Internet-dweller, I have stumbled upon a few folks who are also slightly addicted to their computers and other technological devices. I know for a fact that those folks are not incapable of reading books. Yes, they are reading books that appeal to them. Students may find it difficult to concentrate on reading articles for school, but that is not a sign of stupidity.
Ultimately, technology may change the way we think, but that does not have to be a bad thing. Everybody has adjusted to clocks and the printing press, and we will evolve and adapt to new technologies the world throws at us. Over all the years since the clock was invented, humans have definitely changed, but we are still just as well-functioning as we were before. Thinking differently does not mean the same thing as thinking stupidly. (Yes, I will not stop pointing out the fact that Nicholas used the word "stupid" in a stupid way. I can say stupid because I am a child and am not claiming that the entire group of Google users are ignorant.)
As a Google entusiast, I cannot say that Google is a bad thing. Google is one of my favorite things on the Internet. There are just so many different things that Google has accomplished -- they are not just a search engine. I will refrain from going on about how lovely Google is, due to the length of this blog post already. Unfortunately, I do have to say that the idea of computers being greater than the human brain is a bit silly. Maybe I am feeling skeptical because of the book Feed by M.T. Anderson (I'd recommend it), but actually putting the computer into the brain seems a bit too far. Maybe in the future, the idea would be a grand idea, but right now, in the present, it sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. I have nothing against Google, and as long as they are thinking progressively, they should be fine. I honestly don't see any of that super computer with artificial intelligence happening anywhere except in movies any time soon.
Overall, this article was interesting and fairly thought-provoking. I don't entirely agree with the main message, but we need to have these skeptical thinkers to balance out the free minds who have unrealistic theories and such. Humans may be thinking differently, but we are not stupid.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Ethics of Living Jim Crow
Reading about human stupidity in history is not a favorite past time of mine. It always makes me wonder how on Earth people could have been so shallow at that point. Aside from that, it does give me hope that humans will continue evolving into less-ignorant organisms. I would like to live to see the day when all racism and other forms of discrimination cease to exist. The idealistic future where not a single being takes note of race, sexuality, or gender may or may not be far from now. I assume it is pretty far from now, judging by the current state of living, but my hopes prevail. This article titled The Ethics of Living Jim Crow by Richard Wright is yet another reminder of human flaws. Honestly, "flaw" might be a bit of an understatement.
With my judgmental introduction complete, this specific article is in the point of view of a person living under these Jim Crow laws. He explains the hardships of living like that, and explains how difficult it was for him to keep a steady job with all the discrimination continuously getting in the way. Most of the sidebar comments I wrote on the article were sarcastic and dissatisfied with his stories. For example, somewhere on the first page, Wright confronted his mother about an incident that happened. After her response of slapping the child, I wrote, "what a lovely mother, very understanding." It is unfortunate and upsetting to think about these times. Not only were the "white folks" against this boy, but his own mother was, too. Obviously, his mother was just trying to keep him out of trouble by teaching him an assortment of wonderful lessons complete with yelling, improper English, and slapping!
Wright continuously received mixed messages from people on the job. One moment they'd be talking, completely okay, then the next they are upset and yelling because he had forgotten to say, "sir." I believe this taught him that there was a big difference between the white and black people, and he should never forget that. He learned that he needed to "stay in his place" or he would not be able to work anymore. With his minor mess ups, he managed to go from job to job several times.
By the end of the article, he finally accepted his unfair and horrible fate. He learned how to compose himself around the "white folk" and he essentially became numb to the violence and discrimination towards others. Wright learned of the things he was allowed to talk about and the things he was not allowed to talk about. Not surprisingly, the list of things he was not allowed to talk about was much longer. He had to keep keen and clever in order to avoid unwanted situations with the easily-angered men he worked for.
This article was ended with a quote from one of Wright's friends. "Ef it wuzn't fed them polices 'n' them of lynch mobs, there wouldn't be nothin' but uproar down here!" Aside from the obnoxious English speaking skills this man had, this is a very important quote. Nobody was very fond of the current conditions, and if it were not for the violent consequences, there would be a revolution. Fortunately, people finally came to the realization that the benefits outweighed the consequences. Unfortunately, racism is still a big problem today, just not as big as it once was. I still believe that humans will eventually learn from their obvious mistakes and overcome this period of utter stupidity and discrimination.
With my judgmental introduction complete, this specific article is in the point of view of a person living under these Jim Crow laws. He explains the hardships of living like that, and explains how difficult it was for him to keep a steady job with all the discrimination continuously getting in the way. Most of the sidebar comments I wrote on the article were sarcastic and dissatisfied with his stories. For example, somewhere on the first page, Wright confronted his mother about an incident that happened. After her response of slapping the child, I wrote, "what a lovely mother, very understanding." It is unfortunate and upsetting to think about these times. Not only were the "white folks" against this boy, but his own mother was, too. Obviously, his mother was just trying to keep him out of trouble by teaching him an assortment of wonderful lessons complete with yelling, improper English, and slapping!
Wright continuously received mixed messages from people on the job. One moment they'd be talking, completely okay, then the next they are upset and yelling because he had forgotten to say, "sir." I believe this taught him that there was a big difference between the white and black people, and he should never forget that. He learned that he needed to "stay in his place" or he would not be able to work anymore. With his minor mess ups, he managed to go from job to job several times.
By the end of the article, he finally accepted his unfair and horrible fate. He learned how to compose himself around the "white folk" and he essentially became numb to the violence and discrimination towards others. Wright learned of the things he was allowed to talk about and the things he was not allowed to talk about. Not surprisingly, the list of things he was not allowed to talk about was much longer. He had to keep keen and clever in order to avoid unwanted situations with the easily-angered men he worked for.
This article was ended with a quote from one of Wright's friends. "Ef it wuzn't fed them polices 'n' them of lynch mobs, there wouldn't be nothin' but uproar down here!" Aside from the obnoxious English speaking skills this man had, this is a very important quote. Nobody was very fond of the current conditions, and if it were not for the violent consequences, there would be a revolution. Fortunately, people finally came to the realization that the benefits outweighed the consequences. Unfortunately, racism is still a big problem today, just not as big as it once was. I still believe that humans will eventually learn from their obvious mistakes and overcome this period of utter stupidity and discrimination.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Talk of Town on September 24, 2001
Both of the articles from the New Yorker's "Talk of the Town" section in September of 2001, written by John Updike and Susan Sontag, are fairly eye-opening. The articles express different viewpoints on the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center twin towers.
The first article by John Updike explained his personal experience when witnessing the attacks from a window. He had compared the episode of horror to a television show on a day of "perfect reception." This in itself is an eery thought to be thinking. Watching terrible things go down right before his eyes, not knowing what to do made quite an impact on the writer. How is one meant to act when they witness such awful things happening not a mile away from where he or she stands?
Even before the attack, Updike had viewed the towers as something beautiful. The towers had been considerably large and hard to miss. With it's hugeness, they were beautiful pieces of architecture. As the attack was happening, Updike said that this was also a beautiful event to see. The skies were pure blue, and looked even more gorgeous in contrast to the blooming smoke clouds. The occurrence could even be called majestic or magical.
Since he had compared the attack to a television show, Updike had said that it mustn't be real, it could be fixed. I suppose if it truly were just another episode of some sick TV show, the damage could easily be reversed. Plot twist: it was all just a dream. Unfortunately, it wasn't a television show. It was reality.
Updike explained how he felt as a survivor. He knew that it was his duty, as well as all other survivor's duties, to eventually carry on living his life. Although it is painful to think of it that way, it is a somewhat clever way to exist. One must keep living, even if one does not forget the traumas.
My favorite definition of freedom I have ever heard is contained in this article, written by Updike. He said freedom is "mankind's elixir, even if a few turn it to poison." This line literally made me drop my pen as well as my jaw. I don't know what it is, but the way it is worded is beautifully brilliant. With this attack, America's freedom of motion was damaged. But, he clearly stated that the United States of America is definitely a country worth fighting for.
Updike ended the article in one of the most depressing ways one could end an article like this -- he said New York looked glorious, with the smoke still spouting from the ruins.
The second article written by Susan Sontag was quite different from the first. In my opinion, Susan seemed to be a bit rude about the attacks. She didn't discuss the actual event itself, she discussed the meaning and the details about it.
Sontag thought that the media was essentially filtering their information in order to make it seem as though the country was still strong, we can carry on smoothly. The media failed to mention that the attacks weren't cowardly, in fact, it was brave -- especially compared to the dastardly bombing the U.S. had been doing on Iraq.
In her article, Sontag basically said that the robotic Mr. President Bush was wrong for being optimistic about the traumatic event. The government may have been twisting the facts a little bit, but they must have been doing it for a reason. Obviously, Americans are very proud people. We need it to be said that we are going to be alright, that we are still standing strong. Sontag thinks differently.
Despite America's democracy, Sontag believes that it had turned into "psychotherapy" instead. She said that all the public office was doing was confidence-building and grief management. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but is that exactly a bad thing? Susan thinks so. She said, and I quote, "let's not be stupid together." I would like to applaud Susan on her wonderful vocabulary word, "stupid." Sontag's aggressive views on 9/11 are somewhat upsetting to me.
Sontag also claims that strong is not the only thing America has to be. My question to Susan is as follows: What else should America be then? Smart like Susan Sontag?! Sontag may have the right idea in her article, the American government did have a lot to talk about with it's policies towards other countries, but her delivery is just straight-up obnoxious.
Overall, these two articles were written with clear voices. Although I enjoyed John Updike's article better, they were both written skillfully with interesting word choices and phrases. My view on the World Trade Center twin tower bombings is in fact changed, at least just a little bit.
The first article by John Updike explained his personal experience when witnessing the attacks from a window. He had compared the episode of horror to a television show on a day of "perfect reception." This in itself is an eery thought to be thinking. Watching terrible things go down right before his eyes, not knowing what to do made quite an impact on the writer. How is one meant to act when they witness such awful things happening not a mile away from where he or she stands?
Even before the attack, Updike had viewed the towers as something beautiful. The towers had been considerably large and hard to miss. With it's hugeness, they were beautiful pieces of architecture. As the attack was happening, Updike said that this was also a beautiful event to see. The skies were pure blue, and looked even more gorgeous in contrast to the blooming smoke clouds. The occurrence could even be called majestic or magical.
Since he had compared the attack to a television show, Updike had said that it mustn't be real, it could be fixed. I suppose if it truly were just another episode of some sick TV show, the damage could easily be reversed. Plot twist: it was all just a dream. Unfortunately, it wasn't a television show. It was reality.
Updike explained how he felt as a survivor. He knew that it was his duty, as well as all other survivor's duties, to eventually carry on living his life. Although it is painful to think of it that way, it is a somewhat clever way to exist. One must keep living, even if one does not forget the traumas.
My favorite definition of freedom I have ever heard is contained in this article, written by Updike. He said freedom is "mankind's elixir, even if a few turn it to poison." This line literally made me drop my pen as well as my jaw. I don't know what it is, but the way it is worded is beautifully brilliant. With this attack, America's freedom of motion was damaged. But, he clearly stated that the United States of America is definitely a country worth fighting for.
Updike ended the article in one of the most depressing ways one could end an article like this -- he said New York looked glorious, with the smoke still spouting from the ruins.
The second article written by Susan Sontag was quite different from the first. In my opinion, Susan seemed to be a bit rude about the attacks. She didn't discuss the actual event itself, she discussed the meaning and the details about it.
Sontag thought that the media was essentially filtering their information in order to make it seem as though the country was still strong, we can carry on smoothly. The media failed to mention that the attacks weren't cowardly, in fact, it was brave -- especially compared to the dastardly bombing the U.S. had been doing on Iraq.
In her article, Sontag basically said that the robotic Mr. President Bush was wrong for being optimistic about the traumatic event. The government may have been twisting the facts a little bit, but they must have been doing it for a reason. Obviously, Americans are very proud people. We need it to be said that we are going to be alright, that we are still standing strong. Sontag thinks differently.
Despite America's democracy, Sontag believes that it had turned into "psychotherapy" instead. She said that all the public office was doing was confidence-building and grief management. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but is that exactly a bad thing? Susan thinks so. She said, and I quote, "let's not be stupid together." I would like to applaud Susan on her wonderful vocabulary word, "stupid." Sontag's aggressive views on 9/11 are somewhat upsetting to me.
Sontag also claims that strong is not the only thing America has to be. My question to Susan is as follows: What else should America be then? Smart like Susan Sontag?! Sontag may have the right idea in her article, the American government did have a lot to talk about with it's policies towards other countries, but her delivery is just straight-up obnoxious.
Overall, these two articles were written with clear voices. Although I enjoyed John Updike's article better, they were both written skillfully with interesting word choices and phrases. My view on the World Trade Center twin tower bombings is in fact changed, at least just a little bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)