Is the Internet Still Making Us Stupid?

Nicolas Carr argues that the internet is diminishing our intelligence. He states that our use of the internet fails to foster analytical reading skills. Even Scott Karp, a blogger of online media states that he no longer reads books. Carr deduces that internet causes "our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged."

In the article, Carr also describes a time when Friedrich Nietzsche was getting old and his vision was failing; it hurt badly to continuously stare at a page while writing, and he was afraid he may have to give it up for good. Nietzsche then bought a typewriter. As soon as he mastered the art of typing, he was able to do so with his eyes closed, and thus his vision was not strained. However, one of Nietzsche's colleagues noticed a change in his writing style. Carr states that Nietzsche's "already terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic. “Perhaps you will through this instrument even take to a new idiom,” the friend wrote in a letter, noting that, in his own work, his “‘thoughts’ in music and language often depend on the quality of pen and paper.” Here, Carr is trying to make the point that the typewriter had something to do with his change in writing style. But what if it was merely due to Nietzsche just becoming old and crotchety?

Carr also argues, “As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world,” he wrote, “it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.” But weren't we who came up with artificial intelligence in the first place? Technology alone has feathered into something today which nobody could predict 50 years ago.

As deduced from Carr's arguments, he is arguing that the internet has a tendency to take away from our reading and writing skills. This may very well be the case, but are reading and writing skills the only reflection of intelligence? In an article featured in Discover magazine, author Carl Zimmer provides a counter argument to Nicholas Carr; that the internet (and other forms of communicative media) are actually increasing our neurons' functionality. Zimmer cites linguist David Crystal's new book Txtng: The Gr8 Db8:

In his new book, Txtng: The Gr8 Db8, the English linguist David Crystal demonstrates that many of the dire warnings about texting are little more than urban legends. Texting doesn’t lead to bad spelling, he finds. In fact, Crystal writes, “texting actually improves your literacy, as it gives you more practice in reading and writing.”

The internet should really just be seen at as a tool, not a black hole which sucks away our intelligence. It increases our productivity, our social networking options and abilities, it allow us for further access to both information and opinions of objective parties, it gives us maps, definitions, recopies, you name it, its probably available on the web. In my opinion, Carr's argument is null and void. Merely because the information is convenient, doesn't mean it has to make us stupid or uninterested.

Thank God for Nancy Pelosi?

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, recently made commented on FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's announcement concerning a free and open internet. Genachowski's stance on the issue of Net Neutrality favors the FCC's limitation of Internet Service Providers. He believes that the power of controlling who sees what on the internet should not be in the hands of the service providers, but in the FCC's. Pelosi wants to preserve the openness and freedom of what is the internet; she defines her position of the Net Neutrality bill to the House as in accordance with Genachowski's.

The bill would prevent internet service providers from acting as "traffic cops" on the net. The purpose of the bill was not to control and regulate the internet, but rather lay down rules to keep online engagement fair and equal for all users.

Sadly, on September 27, the bill was rejected by congressional leaders. The 269-152 vote fell largely along party lines. Ultimately, it was the Republican party which provided the majority of the distaste for the bill.

This video explains that informational media has taken a turn from social to privatized. Newsprint, radio, and even television were somewhat interactive in their beginnings. A printing press was moderately priced for their day (~$40,000 in our time), people could broadcast anything via the radio, and television used to be free to anyone with an antennae. All of these personal freedoms and opportunities for free speech have been stripped away from us by our governing bodies. Now we have the internet; a melting pot of ideas and opportunities, and we are being threatened with the removal of this as well? Why does anybody have to control the internet? Why do we have to turn such an awesome tool into a capitalistic money-generating source of revenue for ISP's?

The internet has become such an integral part of our lives to change is or charge for it may disrupt the good thing we have going.

The Internet is a Democracy, NOT an oligarchy

A democratic government is defined my Wikipedia as a form government in which state-power is held by the majority of citizens within a country or a state. As an American, we are supposedly living in a democratic structure of government, and the internet being a facet of our society, should theoretically be democratic as well. As is stands now, the internet isn't really comparable to any form of government, except for maybe anarchy. Users are allowed to access anything, change and personalize websites, connect to one another, etc.; the internet is pretty much free game. But situations which have risen recently could be the demise of free-range internet.

Internet Service Providers such as AT&T, Comcast, etc, are threatening to charge users tiered serves packages where certain users would have to pay more in order to get full access, and users who would choose not to pay the added fees would either get limited or no access. This could ultimately cause discriminatory practices, possibly a decline of speech and expression on the web, and would put the power in the hands of the conglomerates who would be cashing in. A filtered internet is like stifling a child's creativity. It has already been one of the most useful and innovative tools in the past 15 years. If public access were to be diminished by the ISP's, the internet as we know it today would take a turn for the worse.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski recently made the announcement that he will do whatever it takes to preserve free and open internet. He states:

"The rise of serious challenges to the traditional operation of the Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see technology used to shut doors to entrepreneurs instead of opening them. The spirit of innovation stifled. A full and free flow of information compromised.

Or we could take steps to preserve a free and open Internet, helping to ensure a future of opportunity, prosperity, and the vibrant flow of information and ideas.

I believe we must choose to safeguard the openness that has made the Internet a stunning success. That is why today, I delivered a speech announcing that the FCC will be the smart cop on the beat when it comes to preserving a free and open Internet.

In particular, I proposed that the FCC adopt two new rules to help achieve this."

With these rules, Genachowski hopes to not allow broadband providers to discriminate against any content on the internet and encourage broadband providers to be transparent about their practices. On the FCC's website about a free and open internet, Genachowski states that although this goal seems easy, the steps taken to reach the goal are not so clear.

I completely side with Genachowski and the FCC. Internet Service Providers should have no say in who gets to view which website. If I had a choice, I believe the internet should stay a free anarchy, or maybe somewhere closer to democracy (with an unbiased body governing). It should by no means be controlled by the very people that are profiting. This is where corruption comes into play. The internet is by the people for the people, not an oligarchy to be controlled by a few ISP's.

Groupthink in the Internet and Politics

Groupthink was a term coined by William H. Whyte in 1952 in Fortune Magazine and studied by Yale Psychologist Irving L. Janis. It is a term used to describe a type of behavior exhibited by a group of individuals who reach a consensus without adequate evaluation and analyzation of the problem. Individuals in groups generally do this to avoid conflict; however, groupthink discourages individuals to bring up ideas outside of the comfort level of consensus thought. This cohesive nature causes individuals to loose aspects of creativity, individuality and uniqueness; thus, this may cause groups to make quick and dirty decisions for fear of not doing so may disrupt the group's homogeneous equilibrium.

The internet can be utilized to decrease these aspect of groupthink, especially in politics. The sheer amount of communicative abilities and opportunities on the internet are innumerable. In the past, without this ease of communication, rumors could be started by one group and spread until it turns into a group consensus, potentially ruining a campaign or particular platform and individual subscribes to. The internet can be used to reach individual members of a group and fight any inconsistencies and errors in communication any party may be partaking in. Barak Obama used the Net to fight rumors he was Muslim and to organize and facilitate fundraisers for his campaign.

The cool thing about the internet is that campaigns like Obama's can reach out to individuals and it will seem as though the campaign is making an effort to connect with that individual on a more personal level (more so than, say receiving an ad in the mail). This can help the campaigns recruit individuals who may not otherwise get involved with politics. It can also eliminate the potential of groupthink. Most of the communicating we do on the internet involves our identity in one way or another, but a lot of it doesn't have to. This is where the concept of groupthink is completely thrown out. Who would hesitate sharing an opinion when there is no group equilibrium to offset? The elimination of group think can aid a democracy. It gives individuals more voice and it can allow politicians to gain access to the opinions of their constituents.

Article 1: Examiner.com
Article 2: CNN.com

THE INTERNET IS KILLING MY CHILDREN

Not really, but according to Matthew Moore's article in Telegraph there are fifty things (and counting) that are being killed by the internet. While reading this article, a few things came to mind that weren't mentioned in the article.

The internet is killing print periodicals. Moore mentioned something of the sort when he pointed out "hard-core pornography on the web has put an end to one of the most dreaded rites of passage for teenage boys..." He has a good point here. Not to mention, the convenience, and plethora of information available on the internet has decreased our need for news periodicals and has ultimately caused a decline in the popularity of print media.

YouTube and other video media (and probably illegal) websites conveniently allow internet junkies to watch movies and television shows. This has ultimately cause a downfall in television viewership (I don't even have a TV). Moore presses on a branch of this issue when he makes the argument that nobody watches television together anymore; "on-demand television allows relatives and colleagues to watch the same programs at different times... undermining ... the shared experience."

Moore doesn't press on this much in his article, but I realize that the internet has taken away the need to meet face-to-face. Social networking sites and tools such as Facebook and AIM allow users to communicate with one another without the physical presences of each party. Even in work places, Email, Webinars and even the occasional use of Twitter and Second Life have increased the amount of communication while decreasing the amount of human interaction. What psychologists need to look into is the toll this could be taking on our emotional psyche. Just a thought.

Lastly, the internet, as well as advancements in hard-drive space and graphics rendering shot down the first and ultimate RPG games ... Snake and Oregon Trail. Where did these classics go? and Why aren't we still playing them?

Okay, that last paragraph was a bit of a vent-ful rant. But really, the internet isn't quite killing our children. It is however changing the way things work with communication, socializing, information sharing, etc.

Social Media in the News

My personal career goals include the fields of marketing and advertising. Social media can be an important tool in these realms of business. These articles display up-and-coming marketing techniques which can be used with Web 2.0 and social networking sites.

This Lansing State Journal article highlights the importance of using social media as a tool for marketing. However, many realms of social media are new to companies who are set in their old ways of marketing techniques; they are just now experimenting with new ways to reach their audience.

This article (brought to you by building43) provides a breakdown of SEOmoz's (a marketing, consulting, and company optimization firm) top 30 social media sites, and illustrates approaches corporations can take to improve their marketing strategies in a world run by Web 2.0.

This article begins by tracking the importance of having a presence on the internet. Because the internet is so full of various websites, having a website merely to advertise is pointless; the chance of gaining popularity with that particular location in the web will be minuscule. Therefore, social media seems to be the next logical step for getting a company's name out into the eye of the public.

12 Annoying Facebookers

In his article, Keen made many arguments highlighting his distaste for uneducated and opinionated communicators who generally have little credibility on the subject of which they are speaking of. This concept can be equated to a kind of Social Darwinism: Survival of the loudest and most opinionated. Keen argues that the internet is full of these types, tainting the credibility and tastefulness of the internet.

Brandon Griggs from CNN highlights these annoying types of people. He states there are twelve to be exact, and he hones in on the social network site that is Facebook. He states that a recent study of Twitter found that 40% of tweets are pointless babble, and that Facebook, although different in design, it is similar in idea and is comparably obnoxious. The article simply lists Griggs perspectives of the 12 most annoying types of Facebookers.

Keen's argument is legitimate; I completely agree that there are at least thousands of asinine comments and communications on the internet that occur daily, but I disagree that there is a problem with experts not expressing quality work. Yeah Twitter and Facebook is infiltrated with these lame communications, but it doesn't take away from the experts' credibility as a whole. It should be up to the user to find credible information for themselves. The great thing about the internet is that you don't have to look at something you don't want to look at. If the user believes a certain type correspondence is irrelevant and pointless, then open up a new tab and set your browser to a source which you think is worth your time.

Griggs argument makes sense, yeah. But 1) how can you lump the 250 million users of Facebook into 12 simple categories of annoyance? and 2) His whole article sounds as though it is one long complaint. Which only further proves Keen's point. Not to mention, I found this article on what I think is a credible website; CNN.com. Which goes to say that even legitimate websites are jumping on this democratic Web 2.0 bandwagon (bandwidth?).

This goes to show us that the internet really is turning into an open-ended form of expression. The expression may be asinine, it may be interesting, it may even be awe-inspiring; either way, users like the spotlight and see it as an opportunity to share what is on their mind. Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing, it just makes it more difficult to decipher what is worth the reader's time and what simply a waste.

Article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/20/annoying.facebook.updaters/index.html

Google Dumbing us down or Dumbing us up?

What do you think? Is the internet dumbing us down? Carr argues that the simplicity and ease of information gathering via Google (and every other search engine available) is causing us to remember less. He is arguing that attention spans are significantly shrinking due to this ease of surfing the net for quick information. Keen argues that this ease of access can encourage plaigarism, "cut-and-paste" techniques of students, and above all, these actions can and will discourage the forming of personal opinion, nad of deep understanding of materials. Google argues that "information is a resource that can processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can “access” and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers." Which can be true, if the individual makes the effort to become a more productive thinker. But sometimes, this isn't the case. In class we exemplified YouTube comments. most of these blurbs are sparse, shallow thoughts that were probably not thoroughly thought-out before placing it in public. One can argue that these people have these shallow (dumb?) opinions because they don't look into the deeper meanings and origins of what they are reading or viewing.
I don't believe that Google is necessarily making us dumb, it merely makes it easier to skim over important information and become ill-informed. Also, the ease of access (especially with iPhones/internet everywhere) makes it less important for the consumer to actually remember the information presented. In both cases, it is up to the individual to research, remember, or reconcile the information which he or she has encountered.

Community or Idiocracy?

Sitting down to read for forty minutes was quite a freeing experience. I noticed yesterday that my extensive use of the internet has honed my speed reading and information-skimming skills; which, is beneficial in some cases, but it has not helped my skills for comprehensive reading. I imagined this reading would take me far more than forty minutes, but it was quite an interesting read, so it didn't take as long as expected . And although I immersed myself in this publication, I probably got out of it as much as I would have if i had just skimmed over the writing. The deep reading was relaxing, and pretty enlightening, but it was not what I expected to get out of it. I guess you can only soak in so much.

The article itself was quite interesting. I gathered that his point came to the face that Web 2.0 was a collaborative effort, of everyone who participated (quite like the FOO Camp). But Keen makes the argument that the collaborators are uninformed non-intellects. He is worried about the loss of legitimate and informed opinions being replaced with shallow misrepresentations of the truth. I believe that these people exist, the absent-minded, "I-only-have-an-opinion-because-I-can-post-it-on-my-blog", uneducated and inexperienced collaborators. In fact, they not only exist, but Keen is right in the sense that they run rampant through the digiscape of the interwebs. I believe it is up to the consumer to make educated, objective decisions of whose opinion to consider seriously and whose to throw away.

I actually like the collaborative effort that is Web 2.0. yeah some people are idiots and write about what they don't know, but other people provide insight and interesting ideas that we wouldn't otherwise have without this convenient collaboration. I guess just use discretion as to whose thoughts you may think about, and whose you write off.