

Is the Internet melting our brains? - cos
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2009/09/19/better_pencil/index.html

======
TomOfTTB
The problem here is he's misquoting history which is a big issue when your
stated goal is to put things into historical context. I honestly don't have
the time to critique this guy to the extent he deserves but I picked out a few
points just to illustrate what I mean...

Quote #1: "I start with Plato's critique of writing where he says that if we
depend on writing, we will lose the ability to remember things. Our memory
will become weak. And he also criticizes writing because the written text is
not interactive in the way spoken communication is. He also says that written
words are essentially shadows of the things they represent. They're not the
thing itself. Of course we remember all this because Plato wrote it down --
the ultimate irony."

I encourage you to read Plato's actual words here:
<http://www.platonicrelationship.com/blogger.php/?p=411> Plato wasn't against
writing (as the author says Plato used it himself) he was against thoughtful
debate via writing. He's saying that people who learn by reading rather than
by interacting tend to parrot what they learn rather than actually understand
the concepts behind it (and he's right in many ways). So Plato wasn't against
writing he was just trying to get people to realize where it should and should
not be used.

\------------------------------------------------

Quote #2: "Thoreau objecting to the telegraph, because even though it speeds
things up, people won't have anything to say to one another. "

Thoreau wasn't objecting to the Telegraph at all. Read the quote:
[http://www.allsoulscommunity.org/sermons/2003/BetweenWaldenP...](http://www.allsoulscommunity.org/sermons/2003/BetweenWaldenPondandLakeMichigan.htm)
Then go here and read Martin Luther King's take on it (Search for "Improved
means to an Unimproved End"):
<http://www.geocities.com/thoreaulogy/07sep.html>

Thoreau was commenting on the illusion that technology improves the content of
our communication not coming out against the technology itself.

\------------------------------------------------

Quote #3: "Then we have Samuel Morse, who invents the telegraph, objecting to
the telephone because nothing important is ever going to be done over the
telephone because there's no way to preserve or record a phone conversation. "

I can't even find this quote by Samuel Morse but I suspect what he was saying
is that the Telegraph records communication between two people where as the
Telephone can't so the telegraph isn't made useless by the telephone. Not that
the telephone is itself useless.

\------------------------------------------------

Hopefully I've made my overall point. All these people were simply trying to
help society decide how to use these inventions not saying the inventions were
bad. That's exactly what people are doing now with Twitter, Facebook, etc...
and it's a good instinct. This author's aim seems to be embarrassing people
with that instinct into silence with false quotes and that's just wrong.

~~~
mechanical_fish
From Plato:

 _“You know, Phaedrus, writing shares a strange feature with painting. The
offsprings of painting stand there as if they are alive, but if anyone asks
them anything, they remain most solemnly silent. The same is true of written
words. You’d think they were speaking as if they had some understanding, but
if you question anything that has been said because you want to learn more, it
continues to signify just that very same thing forever._

What's great about this quote is that it suggests that Plato might have liked
the web very much. The web steadfastly refuses to say the same thing forever.
(Indeed, it is absolutely terrible at archiving things.) But it supports
updates, and revisions, and back-and-forth much better than print does. The
two media compliment each other.

~~~
lucifer
It is a disservice to Plato to assume he lacks the ability to make a
distinction between a (written) correspondence and text.

Plato's statement here is likely more subtle than superficially apparent.
Specifically, note that he refers comparatively to painting, which (certainly
in his day) required a subject (whether mental or natural).

"[W]riting shares a strange feature with painting", in that dimensions are
collapsed; the subject is 'framed'; and viewer perspective (e.g. "if anyone
asks them anything") is rendered irrelevant and "continues to signify just
that very same thing forever".

------
marcusbooster
_"Far from heralding in a "2001: Space Odyssey" dystopia, Baron believes that
social networking sites, blogs and the Internet are actually making us better
writers and improving our ability to reach out to our fellow man."_

That's an odd movie reference. Maybe the writer is referring to the scene
where the astronaut is watching a video from his family and reacts very
distant and aloof. I thought that was more of a comment on the vast physical
distance and isolation involved in space travel, not necessarily by an
evolution in attitude caused by technology - his family seems like they are
having a good enough time at least.

So it doesn't matter how efficient our social networking sites get or how
lovely Facebook chat is, there will still be an 18-minute lag getting the
signal on a ship heading to Jupiter.

Maybe I missed the point, but I really like that flick :)

~~~
idm
Also, HAL 9000 was "born" in Urbana, Illinois. I doubt that sheds any light on
why the author included the reference, but it definitely overlaps. (EDIT:
Dennis Baron, the author of the book discussed in the article, teaches at
Urbana-Champaign).

I think you might be onto something with the way 2001 depicts communication. I
think the film is so ingenious in its presentation of "future technologies" in
a mundane context. The movie has aged so well; I think that's a pretty
accurate representation of some video chatting I've done, even though it took
more than 40 years to materialize.

It's pretty hyperbolic to call 2001 a dystopia, especially if they're
referring to the apparent lack of enthusiasm that accompanied communication.

Yes, HAL went on a murdering spree, but if that's all the Rossmeier (the
article's author) is talking about, then he's missing the point of 2001.

Anyway, I agree: it's an odd reference. I think 2001 is one of the best movies
I've seen (no joke), so I have a few thoughts on the matter...

------
teeja
The internet empowers many with an opportunity to be part of the conversation
- to the extent that they're able and willing. It brings together
collaborators and ideas that might otherwise never have met. It opens
opportunities to explore facts and ideas, and for self-expression, that have
never existed.

"Destroying the English language"? I think not. More likely, there are those
who are afraid of the empowerment of the many. So, as they so often do, they
throw up FUD. The times, they continue to be changing, Mr. Jones.

~~~
mcantelon
And it improves the conversation by adding metrics and filtering. In my
personal experience it has induced me to improve my writing and become a more
reasonable, less ideological, person.

------
yannis
A very thoughtful analysis, however IMHO the comment that "we have all this
apparatus to find the data we’re looking for" is only partially correct and an
opportunity for hackers to develop applications to adequately filter the
increasing noise of the web.

~~~
onreact-com
This is not an analysis, just a polemic full of words and expressions like
"hysterical", "luddites", "hogwash".

------
th0ma5
print version
[http://www.salon.com/books/int/2009/09/19/better_pencil/prin...](http://www.salon.com/books/int/2009/09/19/better_pencil/print.html)

------
onreact-com
No, it isn't. On the other hand there is no reason to blindly believe that the
Web will make us communicate better than in real life. This guy hasn't been in
flame war yet I guess.

