Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






IS TECHNOLOGY MAKING US STUPID? –NO!

By Mark Rowlands(who is a professor of philosophy at the University of Miami. He is the author of several books, including an autobiography, The Philosopher and the Wolf)

 

MARK ROWLANDS: "Technologies change the nature of our intelligence, but don't reduce it!"

 

AII technology can be used either well or badly. Cognitive-extension technologies do things so that our brains don't have to. They may change the nature of our intelligence, but there's no reason to think that they reduce it. They can alienate us from the world around us, but only if we let them.

We have to remember that cognitive-extension technologies are not new. One of the oldest forms of recording our thoughts and memories in external form is the written language. It did result in a gradual loss of the kind of outstanding memory found in pre-literate cultures. But is anyone really going to say that we became more stupid after developing the written language?

Let's replace the word "internet" with "library." Now, if I were to tell my students at the beginning of a course: "I don't want you to read anything. I want you to think originally," this would show a very naive idea of creativity. True creativity is only possible after you've mastered a certain body of knowledge. And for this you need a "library" of knowledge, which is what the internet is gradually becoming.

I admit that I hate people using cell phones in restaurants. I find it sad that they have so little to say to the person they're with. But is this really a matter of technology making us stupid? It seems more like technology giving us an excuse to be rude. This might be a matter of alienation, but it is not a matter of intelligence. Does technology reduce our ability to focus our attention? It can do so in certain situations, but there is no reason why it should in general. When I'm writing a research paper, I often have many windows open on my computer, and I simultaneously compare, contrast, collate and filter information from a large number of sources. Far from reducing the demands on my attention, I am actually forced to concentrate harder.

The claim that technology makes us stupid is based on the idea that intelligence is exclusively a matter of what your brain does, and that everything else is merely a "crutch." This assumption is naive. Ever since we started developing cognitive-extension technologies like written language, intelligence has always, at least in part, been a matter of what you can do with the world around you - a symbiosis of inner and outer processes. Thinking is not something we do exclusively in our head; it is also something we do in the world.

Our brains may be the center of huge information networks stretching out into the world through the technologies we build, but there's no reason to suppose that our brains won't always be at this center.

Answer the question: Do you agree/ disagree completely with the authors' ideas? Prove your answer.



 

by Dan Gillmor

 

Welcome to 21st century media. Welcome to the era of radicallydemocratized and decentralized creation and distribution, where almost anyone can publish and find almost anything that others have published. Welcome to the age of information abundance. And welcome to the age of information confusion: For many of us, that abundance feels more like a deluge, drowning us in a torrent of data, much of whose trustworthiness we can’t easily judge.

But we aren’t helpless, either. In fact, we’ve never had more ways tosort out the good from the bad: A variety of tools and techniques are emerging from the same collision of technology and media that has created the confusion. And don’t forget the most important tools of all— your brain and curiosity.

I believe in the potential of citizen media more than ever, partly because I’ve seen some wonderful experiments that prove out the potential. media tools and increasingly ubiquitous digital networks.

All information isn’t equal, not in quality or reliability. I care about anundeniable reality: As media become more atomized, more and more unreliable information, or worse, makes its way into what we read, listen to and watch.

Still, I can’t contain my growing excitement about the opportunities for participation that digital media have given us. I suspect you share some of that energy, too. Whether you realize it or not, you’re almost certainly a media creator yourself to at least a tiny extent—and creative activity is intimately linked to the process of sorting out the good from the bad, the useful from the useless, the trustworthy from the untrustworthy.

Does this sound daunting? Relax. In reality, this is a much more natural and logical—and fun—process than you might be imagining.

At the risk of being too cute, I’ve mashed together two words—media and active—that describe my goal in this book, website and accompanying materials: I want to help you become mediactive.

I want to help you to become comfortable as an active user.

We can expand our horizons. We can expand our knowledge. Time is the one thing we can’t expand, but we can use it more effectively. Most fundamental is to rethink basic attitudes about media. That won’t take any extra minutes or hours out of your day, and it will make the time you do devote to your media more productive. (pp. xv – xviii)http://dangillmor.com/

 


Date: 2016-03-03; view: 906


<== previous page | next page ==>
Marshall McLuhanisms | Variant 6. Define the words below
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.007 sec.)