Hi Ben, I think were verging into semantic territory here, but let me comment on a few things anyway. :)
"To blame a human's inadequacies on a certain technology I think is more short-sighted than anything else. We are the ones who can best adapt - let's do so." First, no one's blaming technology---to use the word blame is to frame the argument negatively And I don't think I said anything about inadequacies. In fact, I specifically stated that the issue is not about ability. What's interesting, rather, is how our brain, physiologically might change as a result of the way we use technology---just the way it might have done after the printing press. Or did it? Who knows? It must in some way. We will always adapt, to be sure; but we'll lose things in the process as well. That's inevitable. And the world will adapt along with our adaptations. :-) "Just because writing is placed in a lower grade level of writing, doesn't mean there is less deep thinking. I can recall many times especially reading Bucky Fuller's Critical Path book that my brain has "checked out" because of a long-winded, exponentially-compounded idea. And it's not to say I'd be labeled dumb either. It's to say that there are different ways of communicating and certain methods come across quicker than others and this is all dependent on the person. " Fair enough. I don't disagree. But quicker is not always deeper either. But true, it is dependent on the person, but also on, as you would say, the "effectiveness" of the content no matter what the form or length. I also think we need to separate the delivery and consumption of content that effectively conveys meaning from the engagement in deep thinking in order to create meaning. What I should have said earlier instead of "sitting for long periods focused on a single subject" is engaging in a focused period of reflective thought. I don't mean obsessing on a project or researching at the library on a subject; but pure thinking, the kind that requires time. Novels and books encourage us to do that. Blog post don't so much. And I love what both of them give to us. I don't think people are going to stop thinking or reading novels anytime soon, I would just hate for us, as a culture, as humans with brains, to lose sight of the importance of or the ability for deep reflection as a result of our habits of information consumption made possible through the technology we love. Maybe it's not an issue. The fact that someone has written a book on it makes me suspect that there's at least something in it worth considering. I must have been sleeping during the original discussion on the Google article. Or reading a book. :-) I'll check it out. Okay, I think I've said enough for one day. Thanks for provoking the conversation. Cheers, Cindy On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Benjamin Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cindy, > > "I do believe that our general ability to sit for long periods, > focused on a single subject is being diminished somehow." > > I wouldn't find that to be true. I think if there's a person > willing to sit for long periods of time on a subject, it's usually > because they obsess about something or they're doing research for a > project. The smart ones will not only go to the Internet for the > information but also to the school library. > > To blame a human's inadequacies on a certain technology I think is > more short-sighted than anything else. We are the ones who can best > adapt - let's do so. > > "Also, to say that an essay that requires access to a thesaurus or > dictionary is a less effective way to communicate truly scares me. In > fact, one could say that your opinion reflects the kind of thing these > authors are talking about." > > Just because writing is placed in a lower grade level of writing, > doesn't mean there is less deep thinking. I can recall many times > especially reading Bucky Fuller's Critical Path book that my brain > has "checked out" because of a long-winded, > exponentially-compounded idea. And it's not to say I'd be labeled > dumb either. It's to say that there are different ways of > communicating and certain methods come across quicker than others and > this is all dependent on the person. The Internet is designed that > way to make it more relatable and effectively repurposing content. > > Taking a look at the title: "Surviving the Technological Alteration > of the Modern Mind" sounds really interesting - does it come in > online format? =] > > BTW, there has already been a discussion about the Atlantic article > and I've checked on it - thanks. > > Ben > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36180 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > -- Cindy Chastain 917-848-7995 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
