I must admit that when I saw a chapter entitled "The Language of Computers", I was not at all excited to read it (computers are not my forte, nor do they interest me). But, one rather important piece of information that I forgot was that this book, Language in America, edited by Neil Postman and two other semanticists, was published in 1969. The most interesting thing that I realized while reading this chapter was the perspective that I have, reading this book nearly forty years after it was written. It amazes me how (almost) naïve the author is in relation to what, then, was relatively new technology. Little did he know the extent of the impact that computers would make on our generation, and generations to come, for that matter. He marvelled at things that, today, would seem so simple (i.e., the ability of a computer to calculate the date for Easter for the next two thousand years). We are a generation so dependent on computers for information and entertainment, and we can get practically whatever we want whenever we want it. Here are a few quotes/questions from "The Language of Computers" chapter that I found particularly thought-provoking (I encourage you, as you read these quotes, to keep in mind that these were written forty years ago, and then try to apply them to today):
"Users of such equipment [computers] will probably begin to desire simultaneity in other areas of life and culture. Instantaneity. All-at-once-ness. The most-noticed quality of a computer is its blinding speed-- or, better, instancy." (Lias, 158)
"Will a critical point ever be reached when people will seek refuge from information rather than welcoming all media into their bedrooms?" (Lias, 171)
"Does the fact that people are against computers when they have never used them, neutral when near them, and transfixed when operating them indicate a widespread human hypnosis under which gadgetry can alter beliefs more certainly than books, churches, lectures, schools, and blood relatives?" (Lias, 172)
I think that, for most of us, the implications of these statements/questions are clear. The author of this chapter really prophesied what is occurring right now without even knowing the full extent of the power that a computer would ultimately end up having. I hope these are thought-provoking. I'm curious to hear what you all have to say in response.
Emily T.
(By the way, the fact that I am relaying this information and communicating with all of you on such a non-personal level serves to support some of Lias' points.)
(I will also add that, although I find the extent of our dependency on technology alarming, there is no possible way to ban computers. Technology is a part of our culture, and we must live with it; however, knowledge of its power is certainly helpful-- that is why study semantics, is it not?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"Will a critical point ever be reached when people will seek refuge from information rather than welcoming all media into their bedrooms?" (Lias, 171)
The second quote struck me as most relevant to my own life. Because of the advancement of technology, we, as the youth of this generation, are expected to go above and beyond the paths that our parents followed many years ago. Because it is often taken for granted that almost everyone has a computer at home (a connection to almost any exterior source), we are expected to "raise the bar." Seems ironic how technology is made to simplify one's life, but rather only complicates it.
"Does the fact that people are against computers when they have never used them, neutral when near them, and transfixed when operating them indicate a widespread human hypnosis under which gadgetry can alter beliefs more certainly than books, churches, lectures, schools, and blood relatives?" (Lias, 172)
This gadget we have come to know as the "personal computer" is, metaphorically speaking, considered to be all-knowing. We take for granted that any piece of information on the World Wide Web is ultimately true and infallible. This is not the case, however. Millions upon billions of sources on the internet contradict one another. How's that for reliable?
"Users of such equipment [computers] will probably begin to desire simultaneity in other areas of life and culture. Instantaneity. All-at-once-ness. The most-noticed quality of a computer is its blinding speed-- or, better, instancy." (Lias, 158)
Once again, Neil Postman offers a hypothesis which has inevitably become a reality (you know the drill..). Forty years ago a house wife would have had to expend energy and walk to her neighbor's house in order to write down the recipe for sugar cookies. Now, a mere few clicks on a mouse lead her to any set of ingredients her heart desires.
Procrastination and stress have stemmed from the use of technology. Yes, we complete tasks more quickly, but as a result of this, we are assigned a heavier load of work. I personally would rather complete a math assignment of 20 problems with simply a pencil, paper, and open mind rather than one with 50 problems with the assistance of a calculator.
With the use of computers, we are all expected to refine our work to a level closest to that of perfection. With "spell check" on the almightly Microsoft Word, misspellings are more intensely penalized. With countless electronical encyclopedias at our disposal, a false set of data is viewed as disastrous.
I feel that this stress is unnecessary. What's wrong with manual work, anyway?
I will acknowledge that technology assists in the discovery of cures for illnesses, and that alone, is a signifigant factor for why computers are welcomed into society. How about a compromise? What if computers were only available to research institutions?
(Sam Maliha)
"How about a compromise? What if computers were only available to research institutions?"
I will answer this question with another: Why does there have to be a compromise?
I acknowledge that the use of computers has cause some stress, procrastination, and laziness on our part, but let's not forget about the usefulness of such technology.
Sam states that she would rather do 20 problems by hand than 50 with a calculator, but if the numbers are too complex, it might take even two times as long to complete the assignment. Also, doing it by hand leaves a lot of room for error due to careless mistakes.
"With the use of computers, we are all expected to refine our work to a level closest to that of perfection."
You make it sound like such a expectation is a bad thing. With or without technology, isn't it better to have data that is as accurate as possible? In terms of spelling, shouldn't we be penalized for spelling anyway?
Nothing is wrong with manual work, but at the same time, there's nothing wrong with the convenience of technology.
Well, I did in fact acknowledge the versatility of technology, I was merely proposing a thought-provoking prompt.
But you can't shy from the fact that technology has made our environment a rather stressful one, where as Mr. Lazarow stated today, we only concern ourself with the grade. I am guilty.
Computers allow us efficient ways to complete tasks and thus we are expected to earn A's in the eyes of those seated on college boards.
All I'm saying is that because we have this newfound technology, we are expected to do more, and for those of us who work until we break a sweat, but yet are unable to conjure grades that translate that fact, no margin of error exists.
Because of computers, we crave precision. We sometimes forget that we are human.
Missing the old days,
Sam Maliha
I am inclined to agree with Sam that, while technology clearly has given us many advantages over our ancestors, it also has given rise to procrastination and much stress. Since such innovative resources as calculators, computers, and the internet are now available to us, we are indeed capable of much more research and studying than our predecessors, and hence, our education requires more of us. However, this is simply my own view of the topic, which is rather slanted due to the fact that I am both a cynic and a perfectionist.
On another note, Emily quoted the following from her book:
"Will a critical point ever be reached when people will seek refuge from information rather than welcoming all media into their bedrooms?" (Lias, 171)
This is an interesting and thought-provoking quote, especially because it reminds me of parts of the book I read, entitled Amusing Ourselves to Death (underlined), by Neil Postman, which is concerned with the effects that different media have on public discourse and on other aspects of society. The quote Emily noted seems to suggest that people are overly accepting of any kind of media. A point related to this one is emphasized in Amusing Ourselves to Death (underlined); Postman tries to argue in favor of the idea that we are given a surplus of irrelevant information through many kinds of media, and that this irrelevance will make our culture become trivial.
Postman explains that this idea was originally posed by the author of the book Brave New World (underlined), Aldous Huxley. Apparently, Huxley feared that "what we love will ruin us" (Postman, xx). In my interpretation, I think that "what we love" refers to our obsession with media and television, which give us a surplus of information. This idea ties in closely with the title of Postman's book, Amusing Ourselves to Death (underlined).
I apologize for going off on a tangent, but I felt that Emily's quote and the book that I read seem to go hand-in-hand, and I simply could not overlook this connection. Are there other thoughts?
Janet Lee,
Maker of tangents
Post a Comment