On "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

First off, I have to say that I really enjoyed this article.

I must admit that I was guilty immediately of what Mr. Carr talks about. I looked at the title of the article and started thinking about it without reading the article. If I had come across this article online and seen it was seven pages I would not have read the entire thing.

Mr. Carr's point could easily be misunderstood by anyone who doesn't actually read the article and even by someone who does read the article. His point is that Google and the net are not making us stupid because we are losing knowledge. In fact, we are gaining knowledge and we get more little snippets. However, we are changing, maybe losing, our ability to reason and derive our own deductions from axioms.

Carr talks about different ways that technology has changed writing styles and learning styles. He uses the examples of the typewriter changing Nietzche's style and Taylor's scientific management. He even mentions Socrates's fear of a decline due to changing technologies. This would all suggest that we are simply getting worse and worse simply for the sake of efficiency. Google, Carr says, is the root of this in our modern society.

I agree with Mr. Carr on many of his points. He addresses the issue that our learning style is changing and that our elastic minds are deteriorating in their ability to think for themselves. He's suggesting that we are capable of teaching old dogs new tricks, but those new tricks aren't always good for us. There is a great deal of validity to be had here. We now seem to just read headlines and tidbits of information and assume that is the story and all we do is take the facts as they are presented. Sometimes this is good, sometimes these facts are slanted, but either way we're not thinking for ourselves and drawing conclusions from which we can learn.

The idea that we are getting too much breadth and not enough depth is an interesting one. I agree that perhaps in a strict context, this is true. We read a little bit about a lot of news articles and never have more than two or three facts behind each one. This means everyone runs around trying to make it seem like he or she knows what he or she is talking about when no one really does.

In another context, it would be silly to say that one has too much breadth. I say this because if you think about it, this would completely discredit a liberal arts education and well-roundedness in knowledge. Those of the brightest thinkers in history were certainly men of liberal arts that had a great deal of broad knowledge in so many areas and just happened to be skilled at two or three (i.e. Leonardo Da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, Plato).

In general I thought the article was well-written. The organization was done well and the rhetoric was done in an educated vernacular style that's easy to read but also skilled. It was necessary for these ideas to be put out there and I'm glad Mr. Carr did that.

Not taking it for granted

This is something I wrote today because I wanted to. I want to share it with as many people as possible and a blog is a good place to start:

In today’s world, it has been said so many times that we take things for granted and once in a while we need to stop and count our blessings. We then proceed to take this for granted and shrug-off the idea of humbling ourselves. Still, it must be stressed that we sometimes need to try looking at our lives from a different point of view. I started to look at things a little differently just over a year ago.

When I was teaching swimming lessons last summer, I was assigned to teach a one-on-one lesson to a young boy. This boy was about six-years-old although his actual date of birth was unknown. He had recently been adopted from China by two loving parents that decided that a good place to start assimilating him into the American culture was swimming lessons.

The first day of lessons was a Monday. I met his parents and I met him and I walked with him to get into the water. As expected, it was difficult to get him to go in the water. For one thing, he had hardly been in the water. Additionally, he spoke very little English and my communication with him was limited as a result. Eventually, I got him in the water with me and for the first day we did little more than get him acquainted with the pool as I carried him around and tried some floating with him.

The second day was no better. It was nearly impossible to get him to leave his parents and come with me. He began crying and wailing and he cowered behind his father. He cried all the way to the shallow end as his father half dragged, half carried him. To get the boy in the water his father had to sit with his feet in the water while I got the boy in the water. We warmed up by playing catch with a football and actually did some real swim instruction that day.

On Wednesday as I came to get the boy from his parents before lessons, I spoke with his father. He explained to me that the reason the boy was so hesitant was that he was frightened to leave his parents and get in the water with the stranger. That was nothing I hadn’t experienced before. I have trouble getting kids into the water all the time. They complain that it’s cold; they don’t like the feeling of the water; they don’t like me; they don’t like leaving their parents.
However, to say this situation was a little bit different would be an understatement. Rather than a simple fear of the water, there was something much deeper and serious that was causing this behavior. The father explained that the boy was afraid that when the parents were trying to get him to go to swim with me that they were instead abandoning him. The boy had been abandoned multiple times as a child in China and had lived out most of his six years with other children impoverished, starving, and unprotected. That hit me hard.

That day was much easier for me and for him as well. We started working together very well and over the next two weeks he made significant strides in his swimming abilities. I was so happy for him. I saw him recently in lessons, this time no longer one-on-one but a full class. He was speaking English and interacting and I was filled with joy for the boy.
After that day that the father explained the situation to me, I truly began to look at life differently. I realized that I am so blessed to live where I do and to have the support groups that I do. Many of us are lucky that we have friends, family, teachers, co-workers, and others that support us in those social institutions. Don’t ever take those people for granted.

One of the most important institutions in our American society is that of the family. Families are those networks of people close to us (and by definition related). A republic is founded with the hopes that citizens are active in their community, educated, and virtuous. The family is the source of this.

The idea of the republican values is one that can be disputed. Most agree on what those values are, but the source of them is a bit shaky. Many would argue that these values are to be derived by a citizen independently. Others suggest that the purpose of education is to inform children of these virtues and teach them so that we educate capable citizens. If this is the case, we have failed in most cases. Still more say that peer groups and friends are the source of these virtues. Nonetheless, it has commonly been the family that has been most successful in teaching and carrying out republican virtues and values.

The argument for independent acquisition of these virtues takes most of its merit in the concept of peer pressure. Those that support this view point are generally classical followers of individualist views like concepts of Locke, Calhoun, and Social Darwinism. They state that if a person is taught citizenship by peers, friends, family, or teachers, this is a restriction of free knowledge. There is certainly merit in this because it is generally true that people end up exhibiting the biases of their friends, family, and teachers in some way.

What, then, is the downside of individualism? It is that it is irrational. Society would be a wonderful place if everyone could capably think for themselves and form their belief systems through their own reasoning. This, however, is a silly notion. We cannot much expect someone to grow to adulthood and form opinions that are his or her own because he or she will not learn the reasoning skills to do so inherently; one must be taught to reason and there is therefore a bias present. Furthermore, everywhere there is faction that influences thought. If one is to form an opinion, there first must be an issue; for there to be issue, there must be difference in opinion; where there is difference in opinion there is the influence of faction. It is impossible for one to truly reason opinions individually.

Also, standard republican values of integrity, prudence, and others are non-partisan and not associated with factions. They are all virtues rather than opinions.

Friends and peers are clearly sources of peer pressure. They would be good places for values and opinions to ferment and for people to share ideas and opinions, but it is not likely that teenagers emerging as citizens will be discussing the values of republican citizenship in their free time. While one of the most effective sources of applicable knowledge and hubs of societies, friend and peer groups are unreliable when it comes to the abstract and not immediate. We cannot expect people to learn to become good citizens from their friends. It doesn’t hurt, but it hardly ever occurs except through subtle and almost unnoticeable modeling that would be missed by the unobservant.

Teachers are also an unreliable source. Although for the most part, we hope that bias is not broadly exhibited, bias is still present. Also, schools and institutions may teach the hard mechanics of civics and social science, but often leave out the soft mechanics that deal with citizenship and virtue.

This leaves the family as the most reliable source of republican virtues and support. A family is tied together by relation and love. Blood relation is like an obligation to love, yet still, that love is a strong one. Families certainly inject their bias into what they teach their young. Who is to say this is a bad thing? Families seem to have the highest success rate in teaching children the ideals and values of American citizenship.

The fact that parents try to instill their own opinions in their children is insignificant because it simply continues balance and hardly works. In any case, children don’t always listen. There are certainly conservative parents that have raised liberal children and vice versa. Kids will always rebel.

The important thing is that children are taught the skills of critical reasoning and the importance
of being a good citizen in a republic. Schools try to teach this but often don’t try hard enough. We must use the institution of family to instill these principles at a young age so that we produce active and knowledgeable citizens. For this to happen, the American family must be strengthened and preserved.

The American family is still one of the greatest institutions there is. Freedom is preached, hopefully practiced, and exhibited. It is extremely influential in the decisions made by individuals, communities, and national legislators. To disregard the American family is to disregard the fabric of the American populace.

To be part of a family in America, or anywhere for that matter, is a gift. It is arguably a natural right to be cared for by a maternal unit and be reared by a full paternal and familial unit. Yet today, so many are deprived of this right.

Be thankful to be and American citizen. Be thankful to have a family. Be thankful that you have people that support you. Be thankful to have friends. Be thankful to have food. Be thankful to trust someone. Be thankful to be trusted. Be thankful that you are loved. Be thankful to know how to love.

Don’t ever take these things for granted.

The Stink about "Skunk Dreams"

As I began reading Ms. Edrich's story, editorial, article, essay (I don't even know how to classify it), I was really expecting something a little different.

The fact that she started with such descriptive, flowery language had me excited for reading a good story. Then she turned it into what appeared as if it was going to be an article about brain chemistry (still interesting) that started with a cute anecdote. From there Ms. Edrich took a somber tone of dissapointment and dissatisfaction with one's state in life. At one point I even annotated "man this chick is emo!" After her melancholy personal statement, she proceeded with a short-lived environmentalist perspective. Another annotative insight, "from dreams to envrionmentalism, what next?"

If you haven't caught my opinion yet, it's that this piece of writing was either so above my level that I didn't pick up on the point or it was just an organizational mess like a fundraiser run by a middle school student council made up of the girls who were elected solely on their looks; I feel like it was two wheels short of a motorcycle and for you military types: one more foul-up away from a CF.

I am being a bit harsh. I just couldn't tell where she was going with it and I don't feel like I learned particularly much from the writing. It was minimally thought provoking only at the point where it brings up the concept of dreams and the strange way in which game farms are actually good for the outdoors.

Furthermore, I did love the description that was used. I can usually get a pretty good visual image even from non-fiction essays. This was like prose fiction in its descriptive abilities. Ms. Edrich almost gave me a sensory overload. Her descriptiveness entertained me enough to keep reading and i enjoyed her use of language. Of course, I was also humored at the random subject matter.

I can't say that I think this is a good article because I don't really see the point. That is probably to my fault because I don't even like reading fiction anymore. Most of the recent works I've read have been scientific or philosophic essays, political in nature, or history texts. I need to start reading for enjoyment again. Sorry, tangent. However, I dod think that Ms. Edrich is probably a skilled writer and I would like to see some of her poetry or any works of fiction she has done.