The Winter of Our Disconnect: How Three Totally Wired Teenagers (and a Mother Who Slept with Her iPhone) Pulled the Plug on Their Technology and Lived to Tell the Tale by Susan Maushart answers the above question, at least for one family.
Maushart, a spunky New Yorker and journalist, had fallen in love with an Australian and twenty-odd years later found herself living on the serene but dull western edge of the continent down under. New technology, reconnecting her to friends around the world (and to NPR and the NYT) seemed to save her sanity; but it also, she came to realize, took over the life of her family. Instead of socializing, her adolescent children spent nearly all their time in a "wired" state, communicating only in grunts and snarls. Interests and hobbies like her son's sax playing (he used to talk of becoming a musician) went by the board. The ultimate effect of social media, e-mail, electronic games, iPods, cell phones, and laptops, etc., Maushart decided, had been much more bad than good.
So, with trepidation, she launched "the Experiment." For six months, at least while at home, (they still could use computers off-site) they stopped e-mailing, texting, playing videos, watching TV, Googling, or any other activity related to the Digital Age. (They could listen to the radio or CDs and use the land line phone; Maushart admits some of the distinctions might seem arbitrary.)
In any case, while the switch was excruciating, changes to the family in the end were, to say the least, encouraging. Halfway through the Experiment, Maushart's 16-year old son Bill had this to say: "I'm not a different person but some aspects of life have definitely changed." Noting that he was playing the sax and reading more, he added that "if everything went back on right now, I wouldn't change. Like, why would I? It's more fun than playing with the computer." (To understand just how incredible this statement is coming from Bill, you need to read the book's beginning.)
Inbetween quite humorous sections about the family's struggle, are sections with a lot of thought-provoking research and expert opinion, by the way.
This book is yet another I would highly recommend to anyone grappling with "how we should now live" in our ever-changing world.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Reading, internet style
I'm two-thirds of the way through The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains by Nicolas Carr. The book contains good journalism, among other things, and Carr cites studies to prove his points and some of those studies looked into the sort of reading people do when they go online.
In short, they don't, at least not in the traditional sense. Instead, they skim, with eyes following a kind of "F" pattern. They read the first line or two, drop down and read another line or two, and then zip straight to the bottom. Readers spend about 18 to 25 seconds on each page.
That being the case, it really might tempt traditional writers to ask, "Why bother writing for the internet at all?" Maybe it's better to spend their time and energy writing for the dwindling number of people who still read hard copy books. Those folks, it is hoped, will take the time for "deep reading," as Carr puts it, and as a result cause new material to wind up in their long-term memories. (By contrast, those who web surf absorb little of the content they akim.)
Anyhow, Carr makes a complex and vital, yet readable, argument, so please read his book. (But wait, you never got this far down the page, did you?)
In short, they don't, at least not in the traditional sense. Instead, they skim, with eyes following a kind of "F" pattern. They read the first line or two, drop down and read another line or two, and then zip straight to the bottom. Readers spend about 18 to 25 seconds on each page.
That being the case, it really might tempt traditional writers to ask, "Why bother writing for the internet at all?" Maybe it's better to spend their time and energy writing for the dwindling number of people who still read hard copy books. Those folks, it is hoped, will take the time for "deep reading," as Carr puts it, and as a result cause new material to wind up in their long-term memories. (By contrast, those who web surf absorb little of the content they akim.)
Anyhow, Carr makes a complex and vital, yet readable, argument, so please read his book. (But wait, you never got this far down the page, did you?)
Sunday, October 23, 2011
The Shallows
Just letting any wayfaring visitor to this site that I'm still here. The latest relevant (to this blog) book I'm reading is The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing Our Brains (2010) by Nicolas Carr. Fascinating!
Saturday, August 20, 2011
The Electronic Mob
I continue on a search for answers to these kinds of questions: (1) How are we being changed by new technologies? (2) What should we be doing about it?
While listening to the radio, I again came across an author, Lee Siegel, who has been addressing these sorts of questions. The interview I heard was about Siegel's most recent book--Are You Serious? How to be True and Real in the Age of Silly. (Looks fascinating and I have it on hold at the library). But in my research I came across another title by Siegel that grabbed my attention: Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob. I immediately ordered it from the library and, having finished it, am pleased to report that it is very good.
The book was written in 2008 before Facebook was so dominant, but Siegel's analysis still applies. Among his targets are anonymous bloggers who, with impunity, slander, intimidate, and ultimately silence people who actually know what they're talking about. The "democracy" of the Internet is a sort of thuggish mob rule. YouTube, he thinks, diplays the opposite of originality. To succeed you must be "more like everyone else than everyone else." On the Internet, the search for mere popularity has replaced fame. To be famous, you need skills or accomplishments that set you apart from the rest of humanity. To be popular, you need merely attend to other people wants and deliver them. The Internet, he says, is geared for "pre-adults," people who regress to ways they once behaved in high school when the most important thing for many or most students was not excellence, orignality, or integrity--but to be "liked."
While Siegel sometimes overstates his case, in general I believe he is on target and I highly recommend the book.
While listening to the radio, I again came across an author, Lee Siegel, who has been addressing these sorts of questions. The interview I heard was about Siegel's most recent book--Are You Serious? How to be True and Real in the Age of Silly. (Looks fascinating and I have it on hold at the library). But in my research I came across another title by Siegel that grabbed my attention: Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob. I immediately ordered it from the library and, having finished it, am pleased to report that it is very good.
The book was written in 2008 before Facebook was so dominant, but Siegel's analysis still applies. Among his targets are anonymous bloggers who, with impunity, slander, intimidate, and ultimately silence people who actually know what they're talking about. The "democracy" of the Internet is a sort of thuggish mob rule. YouTube, he thinks, diplays the opposite of originality. To succeed you must be "more like everyone else than everyone else." On the Internet, the search for mere popularity has replaced fame. To be famous, you need skills or accomplishments that set you apart from the rest of humanity. To be popular, you need merely attend to other people wants and deliver them. The Internet, he says, is geared for "pre-adults," people who regress to ways they once behaved in high school when the most important thing for many or most students was not excellence, orignality, or integrity--but to be "liked."
While Siegel sometimes overstates his case, in general I believe he is on target and I highly recommend the book.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
A wise, younger man's perspective on media--and Julia Cameron's memoir
Here and here (two parts) are links to an excellent interview with Brent Ullman on the Canadian show 100 Huntley Street. Ullman, a former teacher and now full-time speaker and author, has good insights into how Christians should evaluate media and culture and help their kids do so. These kinds of questions are central, or should be, to Christians working in the arts these days. Ullman's new book (which I have not read but would like to) is Media, Faith, and Culture.
I did recently read Floor Sample, a memoir by author, playwright, and creativity guru Julia Cameron. Cameron's philosophy, it seems to me, is that the highest good is creating art: that our "creator" (whatever that term might mean to each of us) wishes us--or a life force impels us, or something--to bypass our left brains and regularly let our right, artistic brains have full expression. Doing so will make us happy and in tune with the universe. (While I may have oversimplified her views I don't think I am too far off the mark.) I disagree with Cameron's New Age world view, believing instead that creating art is not the highest good. Rather we should say, "if God wills I will live and try to create art in accordance with His Word."
Nevertheless I admire Cameron's tenacity. Despite early bouts with alcoholism and later mental breakdowns, she produced a tremendous amount over her lifetime. And Cameron definitely was on to something in books like The Artist's Way which helped (and still help) countless artists shake off various blocks and hindrances.
In sum, Cameron is correct that God wishes us to be creative. But creativity must not be allowed to become an end in itself. Views expressed in Brent Ullmann's interview (above) go a long way towards bringing proper balance.
I did recently read Floor Sample, a memoir by author, playwright, and creativity guru Julia Cameron. Cameron's philosophy, it seems to me, is that the highest good is creating art: that our "creator" (whatever that term might mean to each of us) wishes us--or a life force impels us, or something--to bypass our left brains and regularly let our right, artistic brains have full expression. Doing so will make us happy and in tune with the universe. (While I may have oversimplified her views I don't think I am too far off the mark.) I disagree with Cameron's New Age world view, believing instead that creating art is not the highest good. Rather we should say, "if God wills I will live and try to create art in accordance with His Word."
Nevertheless I admire Cameron's tenacity. Despite early bouts with alcoholism and later mental breakdowns, she produced a tremendous amount over her lifetime. And Cameron definitely was on to something in books like The Artist's Way which helped (and still help) countless artists shake off various blocks and hindrances.
In sum, Cameron is correct that God wishes us to be creative. But creativity must not be allowed to become an end in itself. Views expressed in Brent Ullmann's interview (above) go a long way towards bringing proper balance.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
A different sort of tweeting
In regard to social and other new media, I have come to recognize more clearly that, naturally enough, my views are affected by my (1) age and (2) personality. My natural bent, I think, is to focus on elements I find dysfunctional and harmful to mental health, good manners, literacy, and what-have-you. But then I read a piece like this one by poet and Christian college prof Aaron Belz in which he describes how he has found a way to use Twitter that he finds satisfying.
What I find interesting is that Belz doesn't swallow new media uncritically (he went off Facebook, for example). Instead he looks for ways to "redeem" (if that's not too pretentious a term) a medium. As a poet, he values brevity--thinks tweeting superior to blogging because it forces windbags to "put a sock in it." (With no editor keeping us in line, some of us do tend to go on and on, it is true...) However, Belz dislikes Twitter as a means of updating one's movements, for example. Instead, he tweets like the man that he is--a wit and a poet. For a sample, go here.
What I find interesting is that Belz doesn't swallow new media uncritically (he went off Facebook, for example). Instead he looks for ways to "redeem" (if that's not too pretentious a term) a medium. As a poet, he values brevity--thinks tweeting superior to blogging because it forces windbags to "put a sock in it." (With no editor keeping us in line, some of us do tend to go on and on, it is true...) However, Belz dislikes Twitter as a means of updating one's movements, for example. Instead, he tweets like the man that he is--a wit and a poet. For a sample, go here.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
E-mail versus back-in-the-day land mail
Following links, I came across this 2008 interview with author and history professor Eric Miller of Geneva College and in it was this gem:
"I enjoy correspondence [said Miller] but have a now engrained dislike of doing it by e-mail, which, in my experience, has cheapened and disfigured what correspondence was when done by land. 'E-mailing' has now become part of the structure of my day—even a ritual—but I don't usually experience it as a means of joy, as I did correspondence in the pre-internet world."
Miller is younger than me but old enough to have experienced life before the internet. I identify with his comments about e-mail versus land mail and recall the pleasures of writing and receiving many a rambling, handwritten letter. We wrote, in those days, about our lives, the weather, movies, books, issues of the day, our hopes, our dreams, and our heartaches. The letters were stream-of-consciousness and spontaneous and we didn't write such letters (and in particular, expose our secret thoughts) to just anyone. Our correspondents were special people and exchanging letters with them implied special intimacy.
Whether it is impossible to achieve that same sense of joy and closeness using e-mail is a good question. I once had a friend I wrote to for many years and from whom I received many a letter in return. We then decided to carry on by e-mail. It worked for a while--but then we stopped. Why was that? Had the internet changed the nature of our correspondence, or would we have quit anyway? (The answers likely are "yes" and "it's hard to say.")
What I do know is that I miss going to my mailbox and finding one of those personal, handwritten letters inside. A note in my "inbox" just isn't the same.
"I enjoy correspondence [said Miller] but have a now engrained dislike of doing it by e-mail, which, in my experience, has cheapened and disfigured what correspondence was when done by land. 'E-mailing' has now become part of the structure of my day—even a ritual—but I don't usually experience it as a means of joy, as I did correspondence in the pre-internet world."
Miller is younger than me but old enough to have experienced life before the internet. I identify with his comments about e-mail versus land mail and recall the pleasures of writing and receiving many a rambling, handwritten letter. We wrote, in those days, about our lives, the weather, movies, books, issues of the day, our hopes, our dreams, and our heartaches. The letters were stream-of-consciousness and spontaneous and we didn't write such letters (and in particular, expose our secret thoughts) to just anyone. Our correspondents were special people and exchanging letters with them implied special intimacy.
Whether it is impossible to achieve that same sense of joy and closeness using e-mail is a good question. I once had a friend I wrote to for many years and from whom I received many a letter in return. We then decided to carry on by e-mail. It worked for a while--but then we stopped. Why was that? Had the internet changed the nature of our correspondence, or would we have quit anyway? (The answers likely are "yes" and "it's hard to say.")
What I do know is that I miss going to my mailbox and finding one of those personal, handwritten letters inside. A note in my "inbox" just isn't the same.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Does the internet make us less creative?
The above question is raised in a London Review of Books article titled "Smarter, Happier, More Productive," though you have to get to the end before the writer, Jim Holt, raises it. Citing a variety of books about the effects of the internet and Google, Holt describes how these new media in fact may not make us stupid. The variety of mental functions required for surfing the internet may help keep the minds of older people sharp, for instance.
But what may indeed suffer, says Holt, is memory. Instead of holding facts in our minds the way we used to, we let Google do the work. As a result when thinking creatively we don't have the same number of information bits to draw upon. New ways of looking at things just "come" to creative people with full memory banks, says Holt. At least one creative person who doesn't use a computer is Woody Allen, according to Holt. Another, the author reveals at the end of the article (though he does have a rarely-used AOL e-mail address) is Holt himself.
What Holt writes about creativity--and to me it makes sense--should be of concern to all creative people, including writers. While the internet may in some ways make us smarter, does it at the same time make us less original?
But what may indeed suffer, says Holt, is memory. Instead of holding facts in our minds the way we used to, we let Google do the work. As a result when thinking creatively we don't have the same number of information bits to draw upon. New ways of looking at things just "come" to creative people with full memory banks, says Holt. At least one creative person who doesn't use a computer is Woody Allen, according to Holt. Another, the author reveals at the end of the article (though he does have a rarely-used AOL e-mail address) is Holt himself.
What Holt writes about creativity--and to me it makes sense--should be of concern to all creative people, including writers. While the internet may in some ways make us smarter, does it at the same time make us less original?
Saturday, February 19, 2011
How are new technologies changing us?
Instead of simply asking "Why write?" (i.e., "In this bewildering, distracted, digitized Brave New World we inhabit, why bothering going to the effort of writing for publication in the old-fashioned way?) lately I've been pondering a more fundamental question: How are the new technologies changing us?
This question is posed in The Peep Diaries: How We're Learning to Watch Ourselves and Our Neighbors by Hal Niedzviecki. The author notes that when television first appeared, it was thought that it would have certain beneficial effects--education and culture for the masses, for example. Twenty or thirty years down the road we realized television instead was having other, not so great, effects such as increased obesity and violence in children. Television was changing us in unexpected ways.
In light of that, says Niedzviecki, we need today to be asking ourselves what effect all the new, digital technologies are having on us. His book explores just one change: the increased willingness, even desire, people today have to expose themselves (sometimes literally) to others. The book also explores the increased desire masses of people today have to "peep" into the lives of others. Peepers and those who expose themselves, says the author, feed off each other. Being a "Peeping Tom" no longer is seen as reprehensible. We have changed.
Another alteration is cited in the 2008 Atlantic article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicolas Carr. Carr talks about ways his own powers of concentration when reading have slipped and he blames the Internet. Our brains are being rewired, he believes. Citing anecdotes, experts, and a study of online research habits (few people pause to read whole articles) Carr explains why Google indeed may be making us stupid. On the other hand, he adds, we don't really know quite where it all is taking us, so perhaps it's not all bad. Time will tell.
The article caused me to ponder ways I might have changed from using the Internet. Yes, I believe my own ability to concentrate while reading has slipped. Hmmm...
This question is posed in The Peep Diaries: How We're Learning to Watch Ourselves and Our Neighbors by Hal Niedzviecki. The author notes that when television first appeared, it was thought that it would have certain beneficial effects--education and culture for the masses, for example. Twenty or thirty years down the road we realized television instead was having other, not so great, effects such as increased obesity and violence in children. Television was changing us in unexpected ways.
In light of that, says Niedzviecki, we need today to be asking ourselves what effect all the new, digital technologies are having on us. His book explores just one change: the increased willingness, even desire, people today have to expose themselves (sometimes literally) to others. The book also explores the increased desire masses of people today have to "peep" into the lives of others. Peepers and those who expose themselves, says the author, feed off each other. Being a "Peeping Tom" no longer is seen as reprehensible. We have changed.
Another alteration is cited in the 2008 Atlantic article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicolas Carr. Carr talks about ways his own powers of concentration when reading have slipped and he blames the Internet. Our brains are being rewired, he believes. Citing anecdotes, experts, and a study of online research habits (few people pause to read whole articles) Carr explains why Google indeed may be making us stupid. On the other hand, he adds, we don't really know quite where it all is taking us, so perhaps it's not all bad. Time will tell.
The article caused me to ponder ways I might have changed from using the Internet. Yes, I believe my own ability to concentrate while reading has slipped. Hmmm...
Saturday, February 12, 2011
A really good "long form" article about Facebook
I came across a website that awards the ten best "long form" (a term I don't recall hearing when I went to college) articles to appear each year. In the process, I discovered this fantastic article with the title "Generation Why." It's all about The Social Network, Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and a book I've just got to read titled You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto by Jason Lanier.
Author of the article, Zadie Smith, teaches English at Harvard and actually was around when some events portrayed in the film occurred. Although just nine years older than Zuckerberg, Smith says he feels part of a different generation. In a nutshell, the newer generation, People 2.0 as he calls them, tend to live virtually, while his and earlier generations, People 1.0, lived and related, well, the way people did before Facebook.
To pique your interest further, I leave this final sentence from the article: "The Social Network is not a cruel portrait of any particular real-world person called 'Mark Zuckerberg.' It’s a cruel portrait of us: 500 million sentient people entrapped in the recent careless thoughts of a Harvard sophomore."
Author of the article, Zadie Smith, teaches English at Harvard and actually was around when some events portrayed in the film occurred. Although just nine years older than Zuckerberg, Smith says he feels part of a different generation. In a nutshell, the newer generation, People 2.0 as he calls them, tend to live virtually, while his and earlier generations, People 1.0, lived and related, well, the way people did before Facebook.
To pique your interest further, I leave this final sentence from the article: "The Social Network is not a cruel portrait of any particular real-world person called 'Mark Zuckerberg.' It’s a cruel portrait of us: 500 million sentient people entrapped in the recent careless thoughts of a Harvard sophomore."
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Give me neither poverty nor riches
The above words from Proverbs 30:8-9 came to mind when again thinking over the "Why write?" question. C. S. Lewis (see previous post) might have prayed something along those lines when dealing with the temptations of not having time to write. (In his usual thorough way, Matthew Henry expands on this line of thought in his commentary on Proverbs 30, by the way.)
In light of this, writers who believe their writing primarily ought be of use in God's kingdom might want to pray something like this:
"Lord, let someone out there read what I write and as a result be changed in ways that accord with Your will. I need to know that what I write makes a difference so that I will have the energy and desire to keep doing it.
"But, Lord, you also know how too much praise turns my head. I easily could become just another self-important author, spouting nonsense. So in this matter of of sales and success and positive feedback from my writing, please give me what I require--and no more. Amen."
In light of this, writers who believe their writing primarily ought be of use in God's kingdom might want to pray something like this:
"Lord, let someone out there read what I write and as a result be changed in ways that accord with Your will. I need to know that what I write makes a difference so that I will have the energy and desire to keep doing it.
"But, Lord, you also know how too much praise turns my head. I easily could become just another self-important author, spouting nonsense. So in this matter of of sales and success and positive feedback from my writing, please give me what I require--and no more. Amen."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)