In "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Nicholas Carr describes the many ways that the Internet could very well be changing the way our minds think and process information. He begins his article with a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey in which HAL, a supercomputer, is acting so distinctly human that it is almost unsettling. This brings up a very puzzling question: What is the advanced, computer-run society that we live in doing to our brains? Is Google, indeed, making us stupid?
Carr then draws on his own experiences. He states that "now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do." As I read this, I realized that it is so true. How many of us are willing to scour the library for one fact or source, spending hours at a time, when we could just go online and find it in seconds? It seems to be taking away our patience and our natural curiosity to find in-depth information--We simply want to scratch the surface on lots of different topics. Carr then goes on to describe a study conducted by scholars from University College London, in which they found that people often simply browse quickly from site to site, rather than taking the time to read long articles. Honestly, I don't find this hard to believe at all. I often find myself leaving a website if it does not offer my direct answer quickly. What Maryanne Wolf said completely describes the style of reading promoted by the net--"a style that puts "efficiency" and "immediacy" above all else.
Carr then goes on to describe how not just computers affect the way we think, but all technology as well. He describes our mental clock, and how we just don't seem to listen to it anymore. Instead of eating when we are hungry, we eat at seven, twelve, and five o'clock. Instead of going to bed when we are tired, we go to bed eight hours before the clock tells us we need to be up for work. The internet, however, does not end when you shut down your monitor. No, its influences have traveled to the television world as well. The way we absorb information--scanning different sources, reading bits and pieces of work--is now being incorporated into the way media displays information. You get snippets of information, tastes of daily news, and shortcuts to finding what you want.
When describing the Google headquarters, also known as the Internet's "high church," Nicholas Carr quotes the executives at Google. What they said, for the most part, is that the more information humans can store in their minds, the better thinkers they can be. They also said that we may indeed be better off if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence. Come on. Replace our brains with computers? Did I accidentally stumble upon the workings of a comic book writer by mistake? That's insane. No, what the executives at Google want is money. The more they can distract us, the more they can advertise different products. The more products they advertise, the more money they make.
Carr's arguments made complete sense to me. The Internet could, in fact, be changing the way we think and operate in our everyday lives. It's hard to imagine going one day without visiting Google, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Yahoo, Wikipedia, Skype, or any of the other millions of websites out there available for use. What we need to remember, however, is that these sites are simply meant to be tools for entertainment. I may be wrong--one day, the human mind could simply be "a thing of the past," replaced by highly efficient computers that operate for us--but hey, I'll take my chances. I'll read and I'll write and yes, I will go on the computer, but I draw the line at listening to a supercomputer's emotional problems.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Skunk Dreams
While reading Louise Erdrich's essay, I found myself rereading frequently and often confused. Because she often jumped from event to event
(Not to mention my complete and utter lack of motivation to complete the assigment), I had trouble completely keeping track of what was happening up until the end of her piece.
Erdrich begins with a setting that nearly every person can relate to: a young girl, feeling completely alone as she enters the whirlwind of emotion and heartache that we have labeled the teenage years, lies on a North Dakota football field by herself. An unexpected visitor interrupts her sorrow-fest and decides that her sleeping bag is a perfect place to set up camp for the night. As she lies there, beside her new skunk friend, she starts to question what the skunk may be dreaming about. As she lists off strange things that one cannot simply deem plausable, she begins to question not only what happening in the skunk's mind, but her own mind as well. In what was by far my favorite line of this piece, Erdrich describes what, exactly, she would like in the afterlife. "I want something of the self on whom I have worked so hard to survive the loss of the body (which, incidentally, the self has done a fairly decent job of loooking after, excepting spells of too much cabarnet and a few idiotic years of rolling my own cigarettes out of Virginia Blond tobacco)."
She then goes on to describe a dream that she had while in a motel in Valley City, North Dakota. The way she illustrated the picture in my mind astounded me, and her words didn't leave my head (which turned out to work in my favor by the end of the piece). "The fencing was chain-link in places, chicken wire, sagging X wire, barbed wire on top, jerry-built with tipped-out poles and uncertain corners nailed to long posts and growing trees." It seems so rugged and roughly put together that I found it hard to believe that it was impermeable, as she stated. The part next about the elk just simply confused me. I didn't understand how the one long look from a woodland creature could have left her with e sensation of penetrating sorrow.
Through vague descriptions that I couldn't quite understand, Erdrich showed the readers how much she truly loved the outdoors and was able to escape when she was within the forests near her home. Her sensory imagery was amazing when describing the trees. She completely connected to me when she spoke of "the great hushed roar of thousands and millions of leaves brushing and touching one another." It was as if I was within the story, listening to the rustling of these leaves as they spoke to one another.
When she then goes to describe how it is indeed just like the forest she dreamed of many years earlier, I finally began to put the pieces of the puzzle. Her exact description of the fencing earlier made me realize exactly what was going on. She felt so much like the animals inside the fence. There was an obstacle, and she had to overcome it. So when she sensed the opportunity of the fencing that was weak, she entered the area and was astounded by the sheer beauty of the place.
In conclusion of her essay, Erdrich tells readers that she would want to be a skunk, rather than any other animal. They do not have certain living conditions or standards. They just live off of others' waste until people find them a nuisance and drive them to the adjacent state to live and thrive. "They live fearlessly, eat anything, gestate their young in just two months, and fall into a state of dreaming torpor when the cold bit hard." What exactly does this mean? To me, this means she wishes to live her life without second thoughts. She wants to take risks and not plan things through completely. This message is loud and clear to me, and I actually enjoyed the way she ended this piece. The entire thing was confusing and I was filled with questions, but in the end, she brought it all together. Somehow she managed to bring it all together by following the example of a skunk.
(Not to mention my complete and utter lack of motivation to complete the assigment), I had trouble completely keeping track of what was happening up until the end of her piece.
Erdrich begins with a setting that nearly every person can relate to: a young girl, feeling completely alone as she enters the whirlwind of emotion and heartache that we have labeled the teenage years, lies on a North Dakota football field by herself. An unexpected visitor interrupts her sorrow-fest and decides that her sleeping bag is a perfect place to set up camp for the night. As she lies there, beside her new skunk friend, she starts to question what the skunk may be dreaming about. As she lists off strange things that one cannot simply deem plausable, she begins to question not only what happening in the skunk's mind, but her own mind as well. In what was by far my favorite line of this piece, Erdrich describes what, exactly, she would like in the afterlife. "I want something of the self on whom I have worked so hard to survive the loss of the body (which, incidentally, the self has done a fairly decent job of loooking after, excepting spells of too much cabarnet and a few idiotic years of rolling my own cigarettes out of Virginia Blond tobacco)."
She then goes on to describe a dream that she had while in a motel in Valley City, North Dakota. The way she illustrated the picture in my mind astounded me, and her words didn't leave my head (which turned out to work in my favor by the end of the piece). "The fencing was chain-link in places, chicken wire, sagging X wire, barbed wire on top, jerry-built with tipped-out poles and uncertain corners nailed to long posts and growing trees." It seems so rugged and roughly put together that I found it hard to believe that it was impermeable, as she stated. The part next about the elk just simply confused me. I didn't understand how the one long look from a woodland creature could have left her with e sensation of penetrating sorrow.
Through vague descriptions that I couldn't quite understand, Erdrich showed the readers how much she truly loved the outdoors and was able to escape when she was within the forests near her home. Her sensory imagery was amazing when describing the trees. She completely connected to me when she spoke of "the great hushed roar of thousands and millions of leaves brushing and touching one another." It was as if I was within the story, listening to the rustling of these leaves as they spoke to one another.
When she then goes to describe how it is indeed just like the forest she dreamed of many years earlier, I finally began to put the pieces of the puzzle. Her exact description of the fencing earlier made me realize exactly what was going on. She felt so much like the animals inside the fence. There was an obstacle, and she had to overcome it. So when she sensed the opportunity of the fencing that was weak, she entered the area and was astounded by the sheer beauty of the place.
In conclusion of her essay, Erdrich tells readers that she would want to be a skunk, rather than any other animal. They do not have certain living conditions or standards. They just live off of others' waste until people find them a nuisance and drive them to the adjacent state to live and thrive. "They live fearlessly, eat anything, gestate their young in just two months, and fall into a state of dreaming torpor when the cold bit hard." What exactly does this mean? To me, this means she wishes to live her life without second thoughts. She wants to take risks and not plan things through completely. This message is loud and clear to me, and I actually enjoyed the way she ended this piece. The entire thing was confusing and I was filled with questions, but in the end, she brought it all together. Somehow she managed to bring it all together by following the example of a skunk.
Friday, July 3, 2009
The Talk of the Town
"The cell phones in the pockets of the dead students were still ringing when we were told that it was wrong to ask why." Adam Gopnik's introduction to his piece completely stunned and impressed me. An image of complete despair and solitude entered my mind, and I couldn't wait to read more. All that I could picture is complete silence, other than the buzzing of these cell phones, which represent the desperate attempts made by parents of these students, praying that their children are safe.
The author then goes on to ask a puzzling question to his readers: "why an obviously disturbed student, with a history of mental illness, was able to buy guns whose essential purpose is to kill people--and why it happens over and over again in America." While I have no knowledge of the nation's current stance on the topic of gun control (other than the dynamite paper I was forced to write in eighth grade), I was compelled to side with the author's point of view. How is it that the United States, a "self-proclaimed superpower" has more gun-related acts of violence than anywhere else? Is it because our citizens just happen to be the only lunatics in the world? Come on. We're taught since birth that people are people, no matter where they live or what they look like. No, it's because of our need to make a profit and our lack of gun control laws. Those who sell guns often don't care who they are selling to, as long as they get money out of it. Gopnik, in my eyes, did a fantastic job giving example after example of ways that increased gun control laws improved the wellbeing of different places after shootings occured. From Virginia Tech to a suburb of Paris, he gave a solid explanation of why readers should side with his opinion.
When reading his proposition for what exactly our laws could be, I was completely lost. Semi-automatic Glocks and Walthers? Are those brand names? Being someone that has no knowledge of gun types whatsoever, I really had trouble understanding exactly what he meant. I decided that maybe, just maybe, he meant that large guns, such as the one that Cho Seung-Hui used in Virginia Tech, should not be allowed for use by all citizens. If that was indeed what he meant, I side with him. Why should people need guns in order to keep themselves safe? If someone comes into your house with the intention of killing you, odds are you're not going to have time to run upstairs to your safe, enter the code, and run back downstairs before he kills you or your loved ones.
While I believe that the issue of gun control will never truly be solved, I do believe that Gopnik made some solid points throughout his article. More gun control laws could very likely lead to less violence. Hunters need proper licensing in order to own rifles and shotguns, as do all of American citizens. For now, however, I will just be left with my thoughts on how amazing Gopnik decided to come to a conclusion: "At some point, that simple truth will register. Until it does, phones will ring for dead children, and parents will not be told to ask why."
I really got a kick out of Susan Sontag's article. Oddly, I enjoyed her neverending slams on the way the government works. She believes that the government tried to manipulate the public into believing something foolish about the attack of 9/11. "Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific american alliances and actions?" She then goes on to describe George Bush as "a robotic President who assures us that America still stands tall," which made me enjoy her even more. She is simply explaining that the public is not stupid, and we should not be fed information that is completely untrue, just to make us feel like they're doing their jobs correctly. Own up to what has happened, rather than just exhibiting grief counseling. Explain to your country what is actually happening. Don't assume that the citizens of America cannot handle what is going on. Whether we like it or not, we'll deal with it. Sontag is completely correct when she states "let's not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen." We as citizens cannot just sit back and believe what the government decides to say at all times. We must realize what has happened in the past, and let it positively affect the way we respond to tragedies in the future.
The author then goes on to ask a puzzling question to his readers: "why an obviously disturbed student, with a history of mental illness, was able to buy guns whose essential purpose is to kill people--and why it happens over and over again in America." While I have no knowledge of the nation's current stance on the topic of gun control (other than the dynamite paper I was forced to write in eighth grade), I was compelled to side with the author's point of view. How is it that the United States, a "self-proclaimed superpower" has more gun-related acts of violence than anywhere else? Is it because our citizens just happen to be the only lunatics in the world? Come on. We're taught since birth that people are people, no matter where they live or what they look like. No, it's because of our need to make a profit and our lack of gun control laws. Those who sell guns often don't care who they are selling to, as long as they get money out of it. Gopnik, in my eyes, did a fantastic job giving example after example of ways that increased gun control laws improved the wellbeing of different places after shootings occured. From Virginia Tech to a suburb of Paris, he gave a solid explanation of why readers should side with his opinion.
When reading his proposition for what exactly our laws could be, I was completely lost. Semi-automatic Glocks and Walthers? Are those brand names? Being someone that has no knowledge of gun types whatsoever, I really had trouble understanding exactly what he meant. I decided that maybe, just maybe, he meant that large guns, such as the one that Cho Seung-Hui used in Virginia Tech, should not be allowed for use by all citizens. If that was indeed what he meant, I side with him. Why should people need guns in order to keep themselves safe? If someone comes into your house with the intention of killing you, odds are you're not going to have time to run upstairs to your safe, enter the code, and run back downstairs before he kills you or your loved ones.
While I believe that the issue of gun control will never truly be solved, I do believe that Gopnik made some solid points throughout his article. More gun control laws could very likely lead to less violence. Hunters need proper licensing in order to own rifles and shotguns, as do all of American citizens. For now, however, I will just be left with my thoughts on how amazing Gopnik decided to come to a conclusion: "At some point, that simple truth will register. Until it does, phones will ring for dead children, and parents will not be told to ask why."
I really got a kick out of Susan Sontag's article. Oddly, I enjoyed her neverending slams on the way the government works. She believes that the government tried to manipulate the public into believing something foolish about the attack of 9/11. "Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a 'cowardly' attack on 'civilization' or 'liberty' or 'humanity' or 'the free world' but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific american alliances and actions?" She then goes on to describe George Bush as "a robotic President who assures us that America still stands tall," which made me enjoy her even more. She is simply explaining that the public is not stupid, and we should not be fed information that is completely untrue, just to make us feel like they're doing their jobs correctly. Own up to what has happened, rather than just exhibiting grief counseling. Explain to your country what is actually happening. Don't assume that the citizens of America cannot handle what is going on. Whether we like it or not, we'll deal with it. Sontag is completely correct when she states "let's not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen." We as citizens cannot just sit back and believe what the government decides to say at all times. We must realize what has happened in the past, and let it positively affect the way we respond to tragedies in the future.
Better Late Than Never, I Suppose...
Well, what a stressful few weeks it has been. After what I believed to be a terribly unique and exciting start to my summer, I decided that I would get a "head start" and begin working on my AP Composition summer homework! What an overachiever I am. I read the overview and decided that it just did not seem interesting enough to begin on that day, so, I made a promise to myself that I would have at least two of the assignments completed by the end of the month. I figured that by doing those things, I would be in a solid place after the first third of the summer, and could continue to complete things as needed after that.
June 30th rolls around, and guess what? Taylor hasn't done anything yet. I navigated to the "Class Resources" page and discover something that completely shocks me. Due dates? No, it couldn't be. Being the completely idiotic and naive person that I tend to be, the thought never even crossed my mind. So that day, I frantically put together my own blog, changed the background, and called it a day. Discouraged, I decided to wait until Friday to work on the next assignment.
So here I am today, July 3rd, absolutely sure that I can read, annotate, and post my first blog entry in a timely fashion. While viewing Mr. Kunkle's page, I realized something that completely ruined my spirits--I forgot to post my link on his page. Not only was I late creating it, I didn't even have the common sense to make sure I posted it. I frantically post something on his page, stating the name of my blog, and add something that I hoped would at least make him chuckle to himself (and, if I'm lucky, forget that I'm a week late).
So there. That was finished, so all I had left to do was work on the assignment that actually was due today. I clicked on the link and printed out the article, praying that it would be fairly simple to understand, and that nothing else would go wrong anymore. Apparently, God's having fun making me sweat a little. Our printer is out of ink. According to my father, he's been "meaning to get that fixed" and "he didn't know I'd need to use it." Oh, you're so correct, father. My explanation a week ago that I would need to use the printer for AP Comp must not have been clear. I must not have stated clearly enough that if we don't have ink, I wouldn't be able to work on my homework. It is completely my fault.
So I borrowed the car, sped to my mother's house, got redirected because it just has to be the week they decide to redo every other street in my neighborhood, and printed off a solid copy of the homework that I should have started days ago. Finally I was given some sort of peace. I read both, annotate, and go to the computer in an attempt to get rid of this stress once and for all. When reading exactly what the requirements were, I discovered that we were to do an initial blog post about our lives (as if God hadn't made his message clear enough earlier). While I obviously read the requirements a few days ago, my young mind interpreted "blog introducing yourself" as "post something on Mr. Kunkle's page saying that you started your blog." You may be wondering how I could possibly misinterpret something like that. Truth is, I'm more surprised than you are.
So I'm finally here working on something that was due a week ago. While my lesson was obviously learned over the last few days, I get the pleasure of being down-graded before the school year even begins. So here, with my grade an obvious "F" so far, I'm near the end of explaining the tiresome process I've been dealing with. I feel even more silly complaining about it, for it is completely, 100% my fault that I'm in this situation--nonetheless, I will write a post about myself even if it kills me.
My name is Taylor Eveland. I'm going to be a junior. I like to think I have friends, but my complete lack of a social calendar this summer speaks otherwise. My time is often spent either playing with my baby sister, filling up water bottles and convincing myself I'm important to the proper functioning of the girls' basketball team, discussing my lack of athletic ability after throwing the discus in Track and Field, and spilling/breaking things. Often. If you haven't caught on by now, I procrastinate a lot (however, I usually get the job done on time, rather than a week late). In a nutshell, I'm just trying to get by with solid grades and a smile at the end of the day. But hey, 50% isn't bad...
June 30th rolls around, and guess what? Taylor hasn't done anything yet. I navigated to the "Class Resources" page and discover something that completely shocks me. Due dates? No, it couldn't be. Being the completely idiotic and naive person that I tend to be, the thought never even crossed my mind. So that day, I frantically put together my own blog, changed the background, and called it a day. Discouraged, I decided to wait until Friday to work on the next assignment.
So here I am today, July 3rd, absolutely sure that I can read, annotate, and post my first blog entry in a timely fashion. While viewing Mr. Kunkle's page, I realized something that completely ruined my spirits--I forgot to post my link on his page. Not only was I late creating it, I didn't even have the common sense to make sure I posted it. I frantically post something on his page, stating the name of my blog, and add something that I hoped would at least make him chuckle to himself (and, if I'm lucky, forget that I'm a week late).
So there. That was finished, so all I had left to do was work on the assignment that actually was due today. I clicked on the link and printed out the article, praying that it would be fairly simple to understand, and that nothing else would go wrong anymore. Apparently, God's having fun making me sweat a little. Our printer is out of ink. According to my father, he's been "meaning to get that fixed" and "he didn't know I'd need to use it." Oh, you're so correct, father. My explanation a week ago that I would need to use the printer for AP Comp must not have been clear. I must not have stated clearly enough that if we don't have ink, I wouldn't be able to work on my homework. It is completely my fault.
So I borrowed the car, sped to my mother's house, got redirected because it just has to be the week they decide to redo every other street in my neighborhood, and printed off a solid copy of the homework that I should have started days ago. Finally I was given some sort of peace. I read both, annotate, and go to the computer in an attempt to get rid of this stress once and for all. When reading exactly what the requirements were, I discovered that we were to do an initial blog post about our lives (as if God hadn't made his message clear enough earlier). While I obviously read the requirements a few days ago, my young mind interpreted "blog introducing yourself" as "post something on Mr. Kunkle's page saying that you started your blog." You may be wondering how I could possibly misinterpret something like that. Truth is, I'm more surprised than you are.
So I'm finally here working on something that was due a week ago. While my lesson was obviously learned over the last few days, I get the pleasure of being down-graded before the school year even begins. So here, with my grade an obvious "F" so far, I'm near the end of explaining the tiresome process I've been dealing with. I feel even more silly complaining about it, for it is completely, 100% my fault that I'm in this situation--nonetheless, I will write a post about myself even if it kills me.
My name is Taylor Eveland. I'm going to be a junior. I like to think I have friends, but my complete lack of a social calendar this summer speaks otherwise. My time is often spent either playing with my baby sister, filling up water bottles and convincing myself I'm important to the proper functioning of the girls' basketball team, discussing my lack of athletic ability after throwing the discus in Track and Field, and spilling/breaking things. Often. If you haven't caught on by now, I procrastinate a lot (however, I usually get the job done on time, rather than a week late). In a nutshell, I'm just trying to get by with solid grades and a smile at the end of the day. But hey, 50% isn't bad...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
