Deep Reading Is Not Just Found In Books

In "A Medium of the Most General Nature" Carr discusses how new technologies are impacting current media, as well as the users. The number of people relying on virtual entertainment and education, is high and growing. Carr writes "Media companies are reshaping their traditional products, even the physical ones, to more closely resemble what people experience when they're online" (94). Due to the large quantities of people turning to the internet, the different media are shifting their delivery and content in order to fit the new ways of the consumers.

Carr finds that the heavy reliance on the internet is detrimental to the users' ability to read and concentrate. Online experiences have users jumping from site to site, clicking on hyperlink after hyperlink. While, I do agree with Carr that the internet has tendencies to be distracting, I do not find his argument of the internet destroying reading skills to be sound. Whether or not people are reading electronically or the good ol' fashion way, people are still reading. I think that the internet is not harming reading skills, but helping them.

In Mary's post last week, I commented on how users are benefiting through online reading. I talked about how we aren't losing any reading or writing skills as technology advances. However, if we are losing skills, how important can they be than? The skills we are losing are because we aren't using them. I don't think that we are at a loss, but just adapting to the day and age. Steven Poole discusses this in his article "The Internet Isn't Harming Our Love of 'Deep Reading', It's Cultivating It." Poole writes, "Not many people in advanced industrial societies today, for example, grow up developing the mental skills required to kill tasty large mammals with a well-hurled spear."

Poole goes on to call out Carr, strongly refuting Carr's stance of the internet ruining deep reading. Poole gives the example of high sales for Young Adult blockbusters, as well as researchers who focus on finding out what young people like to do, in order to create captivating books that fit their interests. Siding with Poole, I do not think that reading is just skimming. Just like Carr mentions, "Many magazines have tweaked their layouts to mimic or at least echo the look and feel of Web sites" (94). Poole's article goes on to talk about how more and more lengthy pieces of writing are being found on the Web.

While both Carr and Poole make strong points, backed up with evidence, I completely agree with Poole. I do not think the internet is destroying reading. People are gaining new skills, not losing them. I think that users are adapting to new technologies, and some people are pessimistic and scared of this change.

Vooks, Shmooks - Group A

In the sixth chapter of the book, there were a few things that really stand out as Carr talks about the "Very Image of a Book". In one particular part, Carr speaks of books changing and how excited people are for the future of books. He also speaks of these "vooks" that embed videos within texts of books for a more visual and clear reading. I hope I am not being old school but I am not sold for a second that all these shenanigans is going to work.

Carr says that the book is changing and everyone is finding ways to improve reading. I read this and say to myself, "yeah i will stick to the ink". There is also the notion that old books just aren't cutting it anymore and this is where I strongly contest. I strongly believe books will never die. I also believe these "technology" books of all kinds won't last. I agree that kindles and such add a new dynamic but I do not see them surviving long term.

My support for this is simple and is actually mentioned in this chapter. People struggle to read and pixels are only making things worse. When you grab a book, you only have more pages to look at and if you want something else you need to literally separate yourself from the book. On a kindle, for example, your finger needs just a little strain to stray your reading to anything on the web. The argument against this is that there is no more "boring" reading and there are so many creative possibilities. Books are simple, books tell a story, and books were not meant to be changed. We know that innovations can dish aside a long lasting phenomenon similar to a book in the snap of the finger but I am not buying it.

In an article written on medium.com, there is a laundry list of reason the book will never die. I find two of these points to stand among the rest and were actually things I did not originally think of. First, books are autonomous. This is simply saying, you can be is Eastern Upper North Asia (obviously not a real place but somewhere in the middle of nowhere) and a book can be read. It is a luxury and comes as a whole. You can pick it up and put it down as you please no matter where you are. And second, the book is cheaper and has no hidden costs. In a world where price is everything, the "possibilities" of a kindle will not outweigh a price. You can live without a Kindle, because books don't have monthly fees. It may be a nice Christmas present, but realistically there is only a small group of extremely frequent readers that will really "save" from an e-book.

I don't know if I just don't like them or I really like books, but I don't see it happening. I wonder if any of you feel the same or have anything to support or contest my argument. I know, as far as reading goes, I don't want anyone messing with my ink no matter how creative or fun a book can become.

Group A: Carr Chapter 5

 The foundation of Nicholas Carr’s argument in chapter 5 of The Shallows is the assumption that the internet is a fundamental detriment to the reading process. Carr seems to suggest that the experience of consuming information on the internet is less valuable because of its tendency to be more concise and enable readers to jump between texts more easily than if they had to go look for a book in the non-virtual world. However, I disagree with Carr. I think that the same facets of the mediated reading experience that Carr denounces are beneficial to readers’ intelligence. While the internet should not be relied on as the sole source of information, the wealth of resources available via the web should not be discounted simply because Carr denotes them as “of the most general nature.”

            Carr’s biggest problem with the internet seems to be that it is “different” from reading a book in print. On page 91, he argues that the physical action of scrolling instead of clicking is harming our ability to engage with reading in a “multi-sensory” way. He supports the importance of “the crucial link between the sensory-motor experience of the materiality” that accompanies holding a book in your hand. However, what Carr is failing to recognize is that the internet has the capacity to engage our senses in unprecedented ways. A book can only offer us the visual stimulation of moving our eyes across the page and the motor stimulation of turning its pages. We can read about a subject on the internet, but also have the opportunity to listen to an interview clip of an expert speaking on that subject, or watch a video of the topic in question in action. The internet can engage us in the same ways as books, but has the potential to reach nearly every one of our senses in addition.

            While Carr reveres the printed text as the antithesis to the diversions that the online world can offer readers, books are not immune to the author’s dreaded fragmentation. Carr suggests that aspects of the internet experience such as hyperlinks and texts’ searchable qualities discourage readers from focusing on one text for very long. He frames this occurrence as a negative side effect of the internet, but I don’t think it is negative at all. The internet enables users to choose the information that is most relevant to their needs and guides them to their destination as well as sites that they may not have otherwise been likely to discover. While I do appreciate the value of following an author’s argument through its entire trajectory, I think it is an inefficient use of resources to read each book that you pick up from cover to cover. The internet not only enables readers to more easily access the specific information they need, but also promotes diversity of information by encouraging users to go to visit any number of websites. Carr argues that “the Net further fragments content and disrupts concentration,” but I think that it really just allows us more autonomy over what we are devoting our attention to.  

            Carr is adamant that the internet is negatively impacting our ability to read and concentrate. While I am not proposing that all of our information should be consumed via the internet, I think that he is dismissing the other perspective without acknowledging any of its benefits. Further, I think that Carr is ignoring the potential for the internet and traditional texts to successfully coexist. While I know that the internet is damaging the print industry, many (most?) people still recognize the value of having books in print. In terms of research and progress, I think that the internet enables us to advance more quickly because information is readily available to the public. The legwork that comprises the primary differences between virtual and print reading is irrelevant to the quality of reading itself, and I think that Carr is not acknowledging this viewpoint.

The good, the bad, and the internet

After reading chapter five, there are numerous things that stuck out to me. Some being how our society today has such a large need for speed when it comes to anything related to technology and the internet, second how much time we spend on the internet, and lastly how much the internet is integrated into other media facets. What is crazy is how all of these ideas are related but can all be good or bad. Carr makes some very interesting points throughout this section of the book and it is amazing how what he says has become increasingly truer in the present day.

When Carr discusses the idea that people in their 20s spend an average of 19 hours a week on the internet, I could not help but think about how that number has risen from when this book written (p 86). I feel like I am online 19 hours a day now, that is obviously not true, but I’m sure there are actually people out there that actually are. This article states that Americans spend 16 minutes out of every hour on a social media site. That is incredible to think about that over a quarter of every hour is wasted on simply social media, that is not even adding in email, texting, web surfing, or other facets on the web.  We talked about the idea previously this semester of the “always on” logic where people are constantly connected to the internet with smart phones and such. What is truly amazing is that when Carr wrote this book, it was notable even then that people’s usage on the web was extremely high. I think that the amount of time we spend online can be problematic to our society. 

I cannot help but wonder what Carr would say today when he sees the younger generations practically living off of their phones. So many simple skills are being lost because of the advent of technology being at your fingertips all the time. For instance the ability to read a map, or calculate tip, or simply remembering phone numbers are all struggles now for a lot of people because they rely on their phones instead of having this as common knowledge. Hence, reading this section really made me self-reflect and see how much I am online and how much I rely on my phone, and I found it very helpful and insightful.

Another portion of this reading that I found extremely interesting was the section where Carr discusses how TV shows are incorporating more web content on them.  As soon as I read the introduction to this topic on page ninety-five I immediately thought of Jimmy Fallon and then when I turned the page apparently Carr was thinking the same thing because he referenced the Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. I watch Jimmy Fallon every night on the Tonight Show and when he was on Late Show I would watch his show the next day online because of how late it was on. Jimmy Fallon really understands that in today’s society getting viewers is not all about getting people to watch at 11:35 pm, it is about getting followers on social media, having a huge fan base on YouTube, and realizing that clips that can be uploaded online can become more famous and add to his popularity rather than just trying to get traditional viewers. I constantly find myself watching his clips on his website or on YouTube and then sending them to friends or family. This constant spread of communication and online world is an advantage the Jimmy Fallon, as well as many other news and television outlets, see as an benefit in today’s world. Here is a clip that was just posted on the Late Night with Jimmy Fallon YouTube channel saying thank you for getting 3 million subscribers. This is just an example of how much the internet and simple binary code has changed our society and how we go about different things in our world today.

Overall, through both of these points in the book it is evident how the internet has changed our world. I think that this chapter of the book was very eye opening and showed how much the internet can consume us, but also how beneficial it is in other aspects. I cannot imagine my life without the internet anymore, and even though some things are drawbacks, I am happy with my life and all of the possibilities that are now imaginable because of technology and the internet.

The Ever Changing World of Reading- Group A

    For my section of The Shallows, I read the sixth chapter titled “The Very Image of a Book.” Earlier in the text, Nicholas Carr discusses how certain innovations, like the book, have changed us and our minds. He then discusses how even newer innovations change the ones he previously mentioned. For the purpose of this chapter, Carr explains how the book and reading have been changed. He brings up points about computers and devices like Amazon’s Kindle to get across just how much reading has been changed and how those inventions have changed our minds. Are these changes good or bad? We’ll find out.
    Carr brings up the positives of sticking to reading books off of the traditional pages rather than on a computer or tablet screen. Some of these positives include never having to worry about losing battery power of a book since it does not require one, words stamped on a page are easier to read than words on a screen, and there are less distractions. He then brings up the positives of reading off of a screen: lower costs of production of books which would result in lower costs of online books, tablet-like devices can hold hundreds of books, and they provide a wireless Internet connection which can allow readers to look up words or phrases of the book that they might not understand. Carr cites The Wall Street Journal’s L. Gordon Crovitz about just how important that final positive of reading from a screen is, “Easy-to-use, networked readers like the Kindle can help return to us our attention spans and extend what makes books great: words and their meaning” (Carr 102).
    Carr states very interesting reasons for each side. In my opinion, the compelling argument belongs to those in favor of reading off of a Kindle-like device based on it being an all-in-one device. “You can read digital newspapers and magazines, scan blogs, perform Google searches, listen to MP3s, and through a specially made browser, surf other Web sites” (Carr 101). Another component that adds into the all-in-one perks of the Kindle is that readers can connect the readings to their social media sites which helps satisfy the feeling of belonging that everybody desires. Being able to share parts of a book or one’s thoughts of a book can also promote books and raise their sales.
    People are always pessimistic when faced with change. Carr states that people did not think the book would survive the rise of the phonograph or the newspaper, but it did. Similarly, in “Is Kindle Burning the Book Industry,” Kaitlin Tambuscio says, “When the iPod was released, there was much controversy over the music industry and how devices such as this, and the ability to download illegally, could kill the music industry and hinder record sales” (Tambuscio). As popular as the iPod got, it did not kill the music industry. Whether it be the music industry or the book industry, it is clear that the people in power of major companies in these industries must adapt to our rapidly growing technological world so they do not get left behind.
    What does everyone think about books transitioning to our computer and tablet screens? For me personally, I have trouble reading off of a screen and can only read texts for a class if I print them out from my computer. However, I do understand and appreciate all of the positives that come from the transition. Do you guys think books on paper will be a thing of the past? Would you be able to only read books from a computer screen?

Let Me Google That For You - Mary Lobo (Group B)

I use Google to look up everything.  I look up important questions that I have about topics that I am learning about in school, I look up the age and histories of certain actors, and I even look up medical symptoms that I might be showing when I get a cold.  Whether I am on my laptop and quickly open up Google Chrome to do some searching or if I am on my cell phone and briefly pop open Safari, I nearly always have the Internet at my fingertips and I definitely use it.  Of course, sometimes looking everything up can backfire a bit.  Occasionally I will get too caught up reading Wikipedia articles or link-surfing by bouncing back and forth from article to article online and get distracted from the tasks that I should actually be completing.  By looking up symptoms to medical issues I almost always “diagnose” myself with some horrible disease when I simply have the sniffles.

I remember learning how to use Google all the way back in early elementary school.  For over a decade now my classmates and I have used Google for thousands of assignments and it is hard to imagine a world without it.  As Carr said, “The Net has become my all-purpose medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind.” (Carr, 6).  I find this particularly true.  Even things that I already know the answer to I find myself checking with Google just to make sure that I am correct.  There are even websites that make fun of people who dare to ask questions before going to Google for the answer. Let Me Google That For You is a website where, if someone asks you a question you can Google it and send them a link OF you Googling it.  It’s a reminder that no one even really has to speak to each other or use one another as sourced for information because all they have to do now is search for it online.  This article shows some of the many ways that Google has changed the world.

            The “Tools of the Mind” chapter of The Shallows, was very interesting.  Carr went into details about human development when it comes to tools such as drawing and the understanding boundaries and how clocks and time have changed over the years and how time is able to dictate life.  His says “Every technology is an expression of human will.  Through our tools, seek to expand our power and control over our circumstances – over nature.”  This is a particularly effective statement.  It makes me think that we as humans no longer leave anything to happen on its own anymore.  We are constantly forcing ourselves and the world around us to work around the technological constructs that we have put in place.  Humans created wristwatches that are now a constant reminder that our lives are strictly dictated by little ticks and tocks that humans are responsible for defining anyway.
            I think that Carr has made some interesting points so far and I am looking forward to reading more from him.  It is amazing to see exactly how much technology effects humans.  Sometimes I think that we don’t realize how broad of a category “technology” actually is and it isn’t until people like Carr bring up many of the ideas that we can fully comprehend it.  Technology is all around us and it controls nearly every aspect of our lives for better or for worse.

What will be your "Digital Adulthood?" -Nora Kornfeld, Blog Group B

     Something that struck me instantly when reading The Shallows was Carr's "Digital Adulthood." As soon as I read about his interpretation of this idea I couldn't help but wonder what we will consider our "Digital Adulthood" down the road. Now that we have access to so much information through new and developing technologies I can't help but wonder whats next. If our brains are already changing the way we read and interpret information because of technologies what's going to happen in the future?
    I have definitely seen changes in the way that I read and interpret in the past couple of years. Its not that I've become less interested in what I'm reading, I've become more distracted. I can never just sit down and read without interruptions. I am constantly checking my phone to see texts and to update myself on social media. Sometimes I even imagine my phone going off when it doesn't actually ring. I think the distraction factor is what has really hit me the most. Writing this blog, I think I've checked Facebook multiple times. Nothing changed between checking it once then another time moments later, but for some reason I felt the need to check it out. I'm also less inclined to read something if the print is small and its very long. Like we've talked about in class, new technologies, like the Internet have made us less capable of reading long articles when we can get the shortened version of it so easily. I can't help but wonder how my grandchildren will read. If my attention span is so bad already, I can only imagine how bad theirs will be.
     It's crazy to think that our brains work are actually changing. Now that information is so accessible we don't need to memorize phone numbers, addresses, and other useful information. There are few phone numbers in my contacts that I have memorized. I don't think its because my brain can't remember the information, I think its because it doesn't have to. Even teachers are embracing how accessible information is today, encouraging their students to think and not memorize.  My Econometrics class, my professor doesn't make us memorize formulas because in the real world a computer program can do the work for us or we can look up the information ourselves. In the context of my class I'm happy that I don't have to memorize formulas, but the bigger picture scares me a little bit. If I'm not committing information to memory, what will happen to my ability to remember? At this point in my life I think I have a pretty good memory, but ask me again in 30 years, who knows what I'll say. I might not even be able to remember what I can define as my "Digital Adulthood." That may be a little dramatic, but there's no denying that the way we read, interpret, and remember are all changing.
    How do you feel about memorizing formulas and definitions for classes? Do any of you feel similarly about the way you read and remember information as a result of new technologies?

learning languages

Humans as a species are so incredibly intelligent and adaptable. The most fascinating part of "The Shallows" to me was concerned with the history of reading and how it relates to the human brain. I find it so interesting that at first, the spaces we put between words when translating auditory language into text came as an unnatural thing for our ancestors to do. "When we talk, we don't insert pauses between each word--long stretches of syllables flow unbroken from our lips." This is incredible to think about. It demonstrates just how much our brains were  forced for adapt and reconfigure themselves to the introduction of written language. Now, 2000 plus years since, it seems unnatural to not separate our words--of course, this is due to the factor of years of language being spoken, written, structured, and studied. However I find it interesting that Carr notes that "today, when young children begin to write, they also run their words together. Like the early scribes, they write what they hear." So essentially, writing and reading is something that does not come natural to us at all.  Carr notes how when initially learning how to write and read language, "readers' eyes had to move slowly and haltingly across the lines of text, pausing frequently and often backing up to the start of a sentence, as their minds struggled to figure out where one word ended and a new one began and what role each word was playing in the meaning of the sentence. Reading was like working out a puzzle." Suddenly, instead of thinking and communicating through auditory means, visual means of text became the new way of communicating. This must have been incredibly foreign for those people to do, just as it is to us when we are children learning to read and write.
Speaking from my own life, this is exactly how I felt (still feel occasionally) when taking my Spanish classes, or back in my senior year of high school when learning Latin. I even feel this way about reading, though that's probably due to my own lack of interest in "practicing" of the skill of reading. Language is so confusing and strange when you think about it. Recently, I read this article which discusses the problem with learning languages through means of reading text and studying lists of words. Instead, this article suggests that it is more useful and natural to our brains to learn language through visual means rather than through studying words and text because those are not what come naturally to us. Think about it--most children learn to speak simple sentences before they have any clue how to spell their own name. This is no doubt a result of what they hear from their guardians/people around them as well as what they see in the world and the cognitive associations they make with visualizing things. Its like the chicken or the egg debate--which comes first? Speaking a language or writing it? Speaking, no doubt. It's quite interesting then that when you study a foreign language in school, you immediately dive in to grammar and structure.

True life: I am a skimmer - Group B

            When I opened Nicholas Carr’s The Shadows, I just finished preparing myself for yet another voice on the never ending topic of technology. However, as I started reading, I could not help but to think to myself how great of a text this is to end our class. Within only the first chapter, it encompassed many of the aspects we discussed during our time together and further elaborated on them. On page 3, Carr states “We’re too busy being dazzled or disturbed by the programming to notice what’s going on inside our heads.” Snaps to Carr.

            As humans, we spend way too much time getting lost in the world of screens, lens, and remote controls without noticing how our brains are being altered. Years ago, humans used to get lost within pages of a great novel. I can honestly say that I completely fall into the category of a typical college student who cannot read a book from cover to cover to save my life. Is this okay?

            I strongly advocate that it is. Reading a book cover to cover for a class is of course beneficial to say the least, but when I have my plate full and tipping onto three more plates, reading naturally goes to the bottom of my priority list. If it were not for the internet, this would not happen. I have become a master of skimming, finding key terms, and researching them for a quick lesson. When I found that Joe O’Shea and I shared this trait, I could not help but to feel a sense of relief that my habits are somewhat acceptable.

            At a school like this, where books are assigned to be read on the regular, how are the students managing to keep up? I know a very few amount of people who will sit down and complete a whole reading assignment. I commend them for that. But for the rest of us skimmers, we use the skills that the internet taught us to do so. I do agree that the internet has made us think in choppy fragments, but I also believe that the internet taught us to comprehend faster and to think at an overall speedier pace. Reading a book does not compliment that. On pages 6 and 7, Carr states “Whether I’m online or not, my mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles.”

            So I have confessed to you guys. I am a skimmer, but I bet you have skimmed once or twice in your lives too. I fell into the trap of technology at an early age and got caught up in its dazzling features. That is just how it is, and no matter how much we are pressured into reading books, we most likely are not going to read it in its entirety when the internet is at our fingertips. It is the truth. For those of you who do, I wish I had your patience and willingness.

Group B- Responding to Rehearsal

Some people fear change. They are comforted by the notion of consistency and routine. There is a certain degree of uncertainty, involved with change that causes individuals to be uncomfortable. Most people like to be in control and have some sort of command as to what will occur next. However, it is undeniable that conditions will change. The life that we live today will be vastly differently, than what our children will live and their children will live. These changes are mostly accredited to technological advancement in society. New technology can influence, behavior, societal norms, and work efficiency. But what happens when the same set of software (our brains) that has been inside of humans forever gets exposed to new technology? As the brain receives new tools for technology, it adapts to best suit it.

Its not hard to imagine that our brain adapts to circumstances. Arguments could be made that, reading intensive courses, produce faster readers or better skimmers. Logic based courses develop rational thinkers. Even, that most repetitive actions yield altered thought. As Nicholas Carr puts it in his book The Shallows, "Our brains are constantly changing in response to our experiences and our behavior"(31). This can be attributed to neuroplasticity which is the phenomenon of the brain "reprogramming itself on the fly, altering the way it functions" (27). Based on circumstances our brains will adapt to best suit the situation. This phenomenon reminds me of training a muscle. For example, the first time one does an exercise, they will be extremely sore, but through repetition the muscle adapts and gets use to it and eventually does not feel that same pain as it did the first time. The same can be said for the brain, when a new reader picks up a book for the first time, immense mental exertion must occur to decipher the code, however with practice an individual can skim and get the general gist of a passage. Carr also mentions that if neglected these neural pathways that are developed can dissolve. This too resembles the muscle. If I do not work out for a while, my fitness level is significantly lower than when I was in shape. Therefore, in order to keep our minds sharp we have to practice, by doing intellectually stimulating activities.

What struck me as interesting was when Carr mentioned that one could learn something through imagination, rather than physically doing it. Visualization can teach the brain to prepare for future events. Being a highly athletic campus, many students at Ursinus find themselves dealing with pre-game anxiety or excitement. A common strategy that many have found prepares an athlete for the mental stress that occurs during a game is  visualization. Dr. David Yukelson at Penn State, defines this strategy as  a multi-sensory activity where one is “feels himself or herself  performing the way he or she wants". For example, before a big race a swimmer would visualize their stroke at its fastest, imagine hitting the wall with power and pushing off with speed or even just the feel of the water during a perfect stroke. This is supposed to sharpen the neural pathways that your brain has devoted to physical activity and prepare your body to perform.  While Dr. Yukelson mentions that one must have realistic visualizations for success to occur, he sees it as a valuable tool for mental preparation and performance. 

What I am curious about is how much do you buy into visualization as means for learning? Do you think that the only way to learn is to physically engage in the activity, or does thinking about it and imagining it suffice? Do you think you could learn something solely through mental practice?  In my opinion, visualization is highly valuable. When I cannot figure out how to do something in the pool or out I rehearse it in my head constantly. Even for oral projects, I will recite the speech in my head multiple times in preparation to speak orally. I do not have any conclusive evidence that it impacts my performance however it lowers my levels of anxiety before meets, tests, and speeches and has become a crucial component of my preparations.

College before cell phones and laptops? Group B

            Right from the start of the first few pages, I realized how much I rely on the internet.  Every.  Single.  Day.  Even for little things I never even noticed such as googling what day Easter is this year or completing an online application for study abroad.  Without the internet, how would any of those things get done?  My mind is kind of blown right now.  How did students function in college when there weren’t laptops and cell phones in the 1970s?  How did students apply to colleges and fill out applications?  Everything was done by hand.  Can you even imagine filling out everything by hand and mailing something in? What an inconvenience it would be.  I realized how much I take for granted with how electronic the world has become today.

            His book immediately begins with the “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” excerpt that I have read several times over the past year in many of my classes.  I always enjoyed his article and discussing it in different classes to see what everyone has to say.  What do you all think of it?  Do you think the internet is altering the way we process and read information?  Have you noticed your reading skills change over the past few years with all of this new technology?

            I definitely notice a change in my comprehension skills.  I have to force myself to sit down and turn off my cell phone and laptop when I read for classes.  For MCS majors, there are a lot of assigned readings so I try to take my readings seriously and disconnect from the technological world when I do my homework because I can get it done quicker and more efficiently.  Reading for classes with my cell phone out is never a good idea.  So why do I keep doing it?  It’s this habit I have with reaching for my phone out of comfort, boredom, or procrastination.  How many of you have been reading something for class and after a few paragraphs you stop to check Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook to reward yourself?  I do this just to delay doing work too. 

            Then when I want to continue my reading, I have to reread what I already read and focus back in on the assignment.  It’s always counterproductive.  This also relates to reading information online.  I instantly become turned off when I see that something is multiple pages.  Do any of you always check how many more pages you have to go?  Why do we do this?  Have I become lazy because I am used to information being right at my disposal? 

            I agree with Carr that “the more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing” because I am so adapted to going online to look something up and instantly finding out what I need to know.  However, I get frustrated if I have to sit there and read a bunch of pages to get to the information.  The internet has made me incredibly lazy to actually focus on each page. 

            All of this sounds really negative how the Internet has altered my ability to deep read.  However, I think it is more about my patience like Carr references in this chapter.  The internet has made me work smarter though.  I can find information easily and narrow searches down so I can get more work done.  It’s just that when I have to read 50 page articles online I find it hard to focus because there are other things on the internet that are tempting to go on.  The internet is just so convenient for everyone because why should a person bother memorizing certain things that they could easily look up in a second?  Should a person save space in their mind for tedious information that could easily be looked up such as a person’s phone number?  Remember when you were younger and you would have to memorize your friend’s house number?

            The part about reading books and how people view it as old-fashioned really provoked some thinking for me.  The person in the book stated how sitting down to read a book would not be a good use of time when the person could receive the information on the internet.  That statement amazes me because I still read books on my own for fun just to relax.  Though I will admit it takes me a while to finish them.  I wish more people would give leisure reading a chance because it really makes me focus in the moment and step away from all the online reading and homework assignments.  People complain that they don’t have the slightest bit of time to read for fun but they have time to sit on Facebook for 20 extra minutes before starting an assignment?  I’m guilty of it too.  However, I am starting to see my negative habits over the course of this class.  It’s little time slots that could be used to do something relaxing and intellectual. I don’t see reading before bed as a chore just because it is a physical book I have to pick up, focus on, turn the page, and read.  It is something I actually want to do.  I think my problem is reading pages and pages of information that I am not interested in.  Do any of you guys read books on your own time for leisure? 

Relating back to life before technology, it’s not like focusing and sitting down to read a novel hasn’t been a difficult task over the last decades.  It is not something that has just started now. I’m sure it was hard to sit down and read 50 pages at a time in the ‘70s just as it is hard today to do because it is a long task.  However, it is the invention of the internet that distracts us more while we read today which makes it very difficult.  Also, the fact that information is so truncated and accessible too.

  I found this article that highlights how college has changed over the decades.  It was interesting to read this and see all the different perspectives that I didn’t even realize.  For instance, the article states that out of a sample of 500 college students, 73 percent of them could not study without technology.  However, more than 30 years ago there were no cell phones or laptops to use for schoolwork or distract us from studying that I can’t even imagine what it was like going to college back then.  It would have been a totally different experience and I would so want to see what it would have truly been like.  I think technology has altered our patience and the way we find information.  Decades ago, a person would have to go to the library and look up information in books for research papers.  Today, a lot of information is online and can be looked up at the tip of one’s fingers.  If you could go to college in a decade where there weren’t cell phones and laptops, would you? 

Keon J. Group B- It's Carr Again...

In Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows he expands on his argument written in the Atlantic, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” In the book, he argues that we are experiencing a neurological shift in the different way that we digest information read online. He believes that the internet is extremely distracting and that it is causing us to become more scatter-brained and less able to focus on one thing. He makes some pretty strong appeals to pathos by using real-world examples from friends and his own experience. As he states, I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy….I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle” (Carr 5,6).

When I read his article and the book of course, at first I was like…oh no, we’re becoming idiots and then… I really thought about it. Yes, there is more “stuff” online to distract us than ever before. Yes, we may get distracted by the sheer amount of information available online and yes it might consume us. But… that’s also the point. There is a ton of information available online. There are billions of articles that no one will ever be able to finish reading all the way through. There are tons of ads which we may choose to give in to or to reject. Ad blockers help… Skimming can be an issue but it can be avoided. I skim an article the same way I skim a book. I look for the main idea, and supporting arguments of the main idea. If I like the book, I’ll read it if not, I’ll move on to a better book. Skimming can be beneficial. If used correctly, it can help us flesh out ideas for writing, main arguments of an article, etc.

Instead of talking about how bad it is that we are no longer absorbing as much information as before, we should be focusing more on internet literacy courses in school. We should be focusing more on search literacy courses and info sessions. We should be focusing more on learning to adapt to what we have because… due to the sheer amount of information available online, more people can benefit from it. Carr discusses what we’re losing but, what about what we’re gaining.

Yes there are ads, but the ads themselves can be beneficial in their own right. No, they don’t necessarily teach us anything but I have used ads to find stuff that I needed. They’re there if we need them. (But… that’s also another issue, cookie tracking by corporations. Maybe he’ll discuss that later.)

But, ya know… maybe I’m just being too critical of Carr and thinking too optimistically about people. Yes, the internet does create problems related to distraction and skimming and such but it opens up so many more possibilities for collaboration, for interconnectedness, and for learning. The distractions of the internet might deter us every now and then but we just keep moving. If you want to delve deeper into a topic, you may. If you want to read an entire article, you can. Honestly, if Carr would’ve given an alternative to or a solution to the problem like McChesesney, I might’ve been more swayed towards his argument. The internet is there and we use it. If a bunch of studies come out tomorrow saying that the internet is the devil, people will still use it. Honestly I do agree with his main ideas but I think that we should be focused on fixing the flaws of the tech we have. We should be focused on using it effectively to benefit ourselves, our communities and the environment, not condemning it. Internet literacy is the key. Every new innovation will have its flaws but the importance is in how we use it. If asked, most people will agree with the ideas in the text but the discussion ends there. That’s great but... what’s next? Lastly, I think that McCheseney puts it best when he says that we should focus on re-educating the public. 

Sex and Tech - Group C

What's interesting about this reading is that it causes the reader to think about the ramifications of our Now-Technologically Driven world. The idea that human beings can become so involved in falling in love with technology, I.E. robots, is really not something that's so far-fetched. We see it in examples, major examples of pop culture, movies, and etc. The "seductive qualities of technology" that Turkle states throughout the article were initially a way to drive up technological sales and a way to make human beings feel better about using technology. This sexualization is very much vital to having the technology feel less like technology and more like one of us.

Furthermore, technology is changing our sexual habits as well. With this technology, we have more access to sexual avenues that can alter how we think about sex in general. In this article, there are observations about how technology is more involved in the sexual habits of people. There are major changes happening, and technology is influencing just how human being develop and operate in the realm of sexuality. The line between that organic and inorganic feel is becoming more blurred as technology becomes more lifelike and real for consumers.

Siri and other voiceover "helpers" that pop up on certain pieces of technology are a testament to that. A way to bridge towards human innate need is through sex and sexuality. Instinctual and innate needs are ways to appeal to everyone; feeling is part of what makes people human. A way to mask the technology with a human face, body, and sex appeal.

Group C- robot

Hello, I am a robot.
I wake up at a certain time according to an alarm set on my phone AND my computer[that I've set the night before, out of basic robotic habit] and I do my basic robotic duties. I check my email, I check my facebook, twitter, instagram, snapchat and play a game of 2048 to wake up my brain. Somehow I'll get out of bed to get dressed and get coffee and slide my moccassin covered feet across campus.
We are robots! We are attached to our things. And by "our things" I mean our electronic devices. Our emotionless devices, which we are turning into. I no longer yearn to hear about my friends' lives because I've already read about it on facebook.
This reading pretty much depressed me one the whole idea that we might be changing for the better.
What do you think?

Group C - Robots

This reading made me think about how big a role robots play in my daily life. Every day, I spend at least 2 hours on my computer, and sometimes another hour playing Xbox or watching Netflix. Because of how entertaining these pieces of technology can be, we dedicate large segments of our life to pushing buttons and looking at a screen. But what this reading highlighted is the fact that machines don't have any emotional connection back to the user. The feeling only goes one way. If I'm playing a game and my Xbox overheats and breaks, the Xbox isn't going to say anything that makes me feel better...it's dead. Or if I am typing a paper for class and I spill water on my computer and it freezes, I am going to end up typing that whole paper over again. Machines have their flaws as well as humans do, but they don't have to apologize, or take any responsibility.
This idea is even more relevant when discussing how robots are being designed to do jobs that were once done by humans. Earlier this year, Bill Gates said that people don;t realize how many jobs will soon be replaced by software bots. This prediction may seem exciting to some people, but what about those who struggle to support themselves, working a minimum wage job. Sometime near in the future, McDonald's will probably have robots making and serving food. Jobs will be taken away from the people that need them the most. Additionally, what happens when we start giving robots high risk jobs like construction, and they malfunction. We wouldn't know what is wrong with the building until it starts to collapse.
The advancement of technology is creating new, simple solutions to all kinds of problems. Solutions that require less and less human interaction. Just because a robot can do something faster, does that really mean they should be doing it? With the emergence of robots in our culture, we may start to see a decline in the value of humans to maintaining society.

thank you very much Mr. Roboto!- Group C

Robots! These automated pieces of technology that will make our lives easier are going to flourish within a world of bustling commerce and rich culture!

 Jk lolz. I feel like that would be part of the ad culture behind actual household robots like in iRobot. When I hear robots that’s what I think of. These robot Machines would be something that shares human features but are only meant to serve the user of the machine. When pondering about that definition I created, robots can mean many things in our time. It does not need to be some furutistic android that can wash dishes and cook meals in side of its body. These robots can be as a simple as a computer or even Siri.  Turkle attempts to seek out the relationship we humans have with these machines. The ideas about what separates us from these machines come to the forefront. Our nearest neighbor, the computer, is merely separated by the fact that we have senses. Or so it seems that way. It is crazy to thing that this inorganic object I am typing on is so similar to my organic makeup. It has a brain, a heart and technically even veins and blood within the battery. The damn thing can even be told to go to sleep. The main difference is that while a computer can think, most of the time faster than we can, it cannot feel. Our emotions separate us from what the machine is and what the machine can be. But how alive are these objects. When looking into children and comparing the way they feel about these robots, Turkle makes some interesting points. One being that a child is sad when the actual robot dies. We begin to become emotionally attached to the robot and when it does die we are sad that it has dies. Thinking about this really made me look back into my own past to wonder why and if I had done this with my robots. To my knowledge I have been sad when my robots have dies. My Gameboy is a prime example of that. It died and I think I cried for a whole day because I couldn't play Pokémon. Even more recently, when my Xbox received a red ring of death I became angry upset and frustrated. These emotions that I attached to the robots show how we have humanized these machines and how close they are to truly becoming humans.

                Robots are being created every day to make our lives easier. Their functions are modeled off of human functions in order for use and to understand them more fully. Robots play an important role in our lives and can help us in many ways. Here is a way robots help to save lives by performing a human task and replacing the human put in danger. The bomb robot will take the risk of losing human life out of the question here and put itself on the line. It is much easier to replace a 10 thousand dollar robot than it is a human being. They add human features such as an arm to simulate the human arm and a camera to simulate the human eye. it helps the user to understand the functionality of the object. This robot might not be able to feel but has the same dexterity as the human had and can function the same way. this brings robots even closer to being human. Although this device saves lives, it is scary to think how close it is to being human. 

-Chris Santoro

Group C: Last post!

Sherry Turkle's Alone Together is an interesting read.  In my opinion, it was a lot different from the other readings that we have had throughout the semester thus far.  The other readings were focused on how technology is making life easier for us.  But, this reading discusses how technology is similar to a human with regards to its interactions.
This reading made me think about the movie Her because of the close interactions with technology.  The movie is about a human having a relationship with technology and this idea relates closely to this reading.  This is the case because some people turn to technology to experience that companionship, instead of turning to other humans.  This idea does not bode well for me because I believe relationships are meant to be with other humans, not technology.  I personally do not see how technology can be able to provide a specific stimulation compared to what a human can offer.
Going off of that idea is the fact that our society has so much belief in how robots can fill certain voids in our lives.  We turn to robots because they are considered advanced technology, but they simply cannot get the job done.  Nothing in life is perfect and this concept goes for robots too.  Human error is a fact of life and robots are intended to fill that human role, so who says that they too cannot make mistakes?  Making mistakes and learning from them is part of the growing process and how we learn.  Honestly, I believe we are able to learn more when we make mistakes and learn from them.  This idea is why robots do not have to be involved in our lives as much as some people say that they do.
In conclusion, I do not agree with this readings perspective.  I believe that face-to-face interactions with people are important in development and growth.  Adding robots to this mix will just create problems because robots lack the feelings that humans possess.  Our society is suffering as it is when it comes to how we communicate, add robots into the mix and we are doomed.  Do you honestly believe robots will make life easier for us?

Group C- Fun with Robots

I like the perspective Sherry Turkle is able to give on these issues of communication and technology. As a trained psychologist, she says she places "...high value on relationships of intimacy and authenticity" (pg. 6), and is then able to look at the way we are moving more and more towards using robots instead of humans for intimacy, work, and even love. I think she brings up a good point that as much as everyone wants to be connected to someone or something all the time, we are devaluing what being alone by ourselves can do to help us.

The introduction of Alone Together brings up some shocking and concerning examples of the way we are no longer using technology, we are being controlled by it. She talks about a mother who told the story of going to the apartment of someone she was interviewing for a baby sitting job. When the roommate of the applicant answered the door and the mother asked her to go knock on her door, the roommate responded "I would never do that. That would be intrusive. I'll text her" (pg. 2). Turkle then continues talking about how more and more people are moving toward the use of robots for friendship and intimacy. They try to substitute robots instead of having relationships with real people who have feelings, emotions, and problems just like them. While the robots may be able to respond to the people and make them feel comforted by acting like a friend, they can never truly replace a human because they are simply machines and cannot replicate human feelings.

 Although the examples in the introduction tend to be a bit extreme (she even talks abouts about a book that predicts in the future robots will be able to create more sex positions that all the ones already known combined!), Turkle's point is taken about how more and more we are letting technology be an escape from our fears and the challenges life brings. Further, her main point as she goes through the first few chapters is that while everyone is so afraid of being alone all the time, there are actually good things that can come out of being secluded at times.

 I agree with what she is saying about this. It doesn't mean you should lock yourself in a room and spend all your time sitting on a computer talking to chat bots, but having time during the day where you can just be alone and reflect on your thoughts is something I value. It allows you collect yourself and just let your mind roam as you think about things like what's in your future, whether that's tomorrow or ten years from now. I am certainly someone who enjoys interacting with others and spending time on the internet or my phone, but at the same time I don't feel the need to be texting someone 24/7 or spend hours on Facebook (although I must admit it is tempting. Damn you, Zuckerberg), I am comfortable with being alone in a room by myself thinking about whatever is on my mind.

In the end, and this is a theme I have thought about often throughout this class, we need to use technology in moderation. Its perfectly fine to text friends or go on the internet often, but we cannot allow those things to replace face to face interaction with others or the experiences the come from building relationships with others. My question is, how do you guys feel about being alone. Do you enjoy it at certain times? Why do you think the fear of being alone is something that scares people so much that they want to use robots for interaction to feel comfortable?

What has our world come to? - Group C

After reading Sherry Turkle’s Alone Together, I must admit that I am worried just how much we depend on technology and even more so what we depend on it for. The readings we’ve had for this class up until this point have generally been based around the idea of using technology to make everyday tasks easier, promote democracy, and alter the way we think. However, Alone Together brings up the way some people utilize technology as their own personal companion, in more ways than one.

In the “Author’s Note: Turning Points”, the claim that we as individuals “fear the risks and disappointments of relationships with our fellow humans” and so “expect more from technology and less from each other” really caught my attention because when I usually think about technology I typically think about how it connects us and essentially brings us together. This statement, however, raises the point that now more than ever we protect ourselves from hardship and pain through technology. For example, in the “Introduction” section of this reading, the author talks about how the Zhu Zhu toy pet hamsters are “presented as ‘better’ than any real pet could be” because they are “loveable and responsive, don’t require cleanup, and will never die” (pg. 1). It bothers me that we are replacing the animate with inanimate objects in order to avoid things we have no control over, such as death. Moreover, some people would prefer interacting with a robot rather than a human in order to avoid things like cheating husbands and children who take drugs (pg. 10). It is evident we are turning to technology to avoid fear and pain, but I think that dealing with hardship builds character and is how we grow as a person; it makes me sad that we are too scared to experience struggle and will do anything to completely avoid things that are just a part of life to the point of having a robot as a best friend or companion.

The author states that we put so much hope in robots and technology because we have “technological optimism”, which is the belief that as other things go wrong in life, science will go right (pg.11). I found this interesting because in so many of the readings we’ve done in class, such as Digital Disconnect, include rather long lists of negativity that has emerged from technology. I think that people either underestimate or don’t realize the trouble of the unintended consequences which result from technology; today’s day in age is so wrapped up in innovation and how to make things faster, easier, and more realistic that we as a whole do not see the big picture of how it can ultimately affect us in something other than a positive manner.

I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I am not a big fan of human-robot relationships of any kind, whether that’d be as a companion, pet, or lover as Sherry Turkle discusses in Alone Together. I believe that as we limit face to face and overall human contact with each other, we are cheating ourselves of being able to grow as a person and appreciate the real, natural things life has to offer. Yes, in a perfect world people and pets wouldn’t die, your boyfriend or girlfriend wouldn’t break up with you, and you’d never fight with your parents. But we don’t live in a perfect world. I think we are trying to create a perfect world through technology and unfortunately believe it will never happen. What do you think?