Is All our Technological Progress Hurting Our Posterity?

"The Dumbest Generation?" and "Where Are We Headed" in the PBS’s Digital Nation

Summary:
Each of these video segments deals with the adverse effects that digital media is having on our and the newest generation. What is argued initially is that educators are seeing a “dumbing down” of students in college, high school, and even down to the elementary level. This loss is seen in the way that student write – “in paragraphs rather than essays” – and in the way that they read – sparknotes, short books, how much they read, etc. They cite data that shows test scores in reading and writing may be going down as a result, and suggest that technology and media is to blame for all of this. The other side of the argument is also offered here, though. Many of the people speaking say that students are learning different by the standards of previous generations. They also admit that there may be some loss that comes with this, but there is also societal gain, and that this loss has come with every new technology. The best example I thought was their reference to the Homeric poems, which in print are thousands of pages long, yet used to be cited from memory. They say that this ability to memorize single things in this volume was lost with the inception of print, but they also point out that this loss comes at the feet of great gains (print). One additional thing that they show is how society is adapting to technology in education, especially video games. They show an elementary/middle school that is based on simple games to encourage learning and exploration. There is also multiple Army recruiting buildings called “The Army Experience” walled with Xboxes playing shooter games aimed at teens that play video games.
Inquiry:
I have mixed reactions to both sides of the argument presented here, and think that a middle ground is more of the right path for society. We’ve all grown up with books, and very few will doubt that kids who read more do better academically. Children are reading less and less as technology becomes more prominent, they are tempted with games more and more, and I believe the claims that the video makes about kids learning differently. I think that these learning differences can be a bad thing, but only when taken to the extreme. I recognize that the advances in society outweigh any small learning loss that comes as an effect, but I still think that as a society we should encourage kids to read physical books, play outside, and just be unplugged. I find more and more that my digital life can be more of a burden than a benefit (sometimes), and I fear that children who grow up totally wired may never catch themselves and see what there is outside of digital media.
I think that our generation (and even more so with the people just a few years older) has a unique position in that we were mostly raised on books and more classical forms of education, and are just recently (last ~10 years) seeing technology being a major part of our life. We all grew up knowing what cell phones were, but they were simple then, never touch-screen smart phones with internet access. This is all that children might ever see even five years from now. We have seen both sides of the situation, something that our children will never see. But is it a bad thing?
Questions:
1) If you were the parent of a young child now, what kinds of digital media would you encourage? Specifically, what new media do you think are most beneficial to children’s education today?
2) One could argue that video games, etc. are good for children “in moderation”. Can this argument be made with books? Is there a point where reading too much can be just as bad as playing too many games? What makes the difference between these thresholds?
3) How did technology influence the young generation before ours (lets say pre-cell phones), how has it influenced us, and how will it influence the next generation (i.e. someone who is being born now)? What will be the defining educational differences between these three groups?



P.S: did anyone else notice Henry Jenkins’ part, and/or the Wooden Mirror? They seemed like fun Easter eggs as I watched.

Electronic Monumentality

Summary disclosure: this is a long post
This article is an excerpt from the introduction from Ulmer’s book about electronic Monumentality. Ulmer conjectures and hypothesizes about the precursors and implications on creating monuments electronically that address, reach and impact individuals and societies. Ulmer suggests starting an internet consultancy (EmerAgency) to educate society about electronic monumentality and MEmorial to act as the implementation method.

Electracy is the literacy of new media and the internet and it makes individual and collective commemoration possible and facilitates the creation of new politics, ethics and education to recognize and address the dromosphere (the pollution of human thought and language (http://heuretics.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/internet-accident/) Ulmer claims that his application of MEmorial could potentially be to electracy as analytical writing is to literacy; a way to think critically and analyze dilemmas, the realm of electracy, in attempt to reach a solution or a puzzle piece to the solution.

He goes on to talk about the implications of apparati on individuals and socities;
- Orality; solved dilemmas by chance and religion. Aided individuals in identification of oneself as a spirit.
- Literacy; brought on the Enlightenment and the move toward science and knowledge. Literacy has helped aid in the identification of selfhood, however “has not done well ameliorating societal ignorance” (xxv)
- Electracy; Because it is a new apparatus (starting with photography in the 19th century) the ramifications are yet to be seen, however one of the main applications as of now appears to be entertainment. Ulmer later asserts that one of the goals of electracy is to “do for the community as a whole what literacy did for individuals.” – or rather give a framework for solving societal dilemmas.

One of the barriers, Ulmer states, for electracy to achieving its societal goal is that our era bases our knowledge/belief on literary testimony, meaning that a story/fact doesn’t have a great impact unless received testimonially and this is likely because of a numbing from exposure to much trauma. There are “concerns about “compassion fatigue” – the failure of citizens to be affected by or at least moved to action in response to the daily rehersal of worldwide misery”. This fatigue from trauma exposure makes electracy’s goal of societal identification and solution difficult.

He continues to layout how MEmorial would be an electracy application for individuals and societies to process, monumentalize, and solve dilemmas and trauma.

The audience is definitely academic peers that are familiar with various works and concepts that Ulmer’s arguments are built upon as it is replete with specific terms with little or no defining and quotes from several previous works. The language is quite sophisticated and the background understanding of this language assumed. Ulmer claims of his MEmorial format as a society problem solving tool and has much on stake. In a sense he is comparing himself to Socrates as he stated that Socrates had an oral application of a literacy mindset and Ulmer is claiming that electracy (in the form of MEmorial) is the way to solve not just individual but societal dilemmas. In projecting these arguments I think Ulmer has a lot at stake.

Personal Comments
In my opinion Ulmer greatly over-generalizes concepts that are not necessarily true. For Example, he claims that literacy has helped the individual identify themselves and process and solve dilemmas through knowledge and education. But how widely is this sense of “literacy” applied and is it always a fail-safe problem-solving self-identifying mode? How widely are any of the apparatus applied?

Also the creation and application of EmerAgency and MEmorial seems so abstract and inapplicable that I do not see how it could achieve the goal that it aims to achieve. Going back to the application of the apparatus, if only a few individuals pursue the application and utilization of apparatus

Inquiry
Below are some questions that I was left with;
1. Ulmer states that society can be ignorant (illustrated by Uncle Sam below) and electracy has the potential to solve this societal ignorance and “compassion fatigue”, however how true is this? In my opinion new media is more often than not abused and taken for granted and allows for individuals to become self-centric and with a sense of deserving (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk)
2. But how widely is this sense of “literacy” applied and is it always a fail-safe problem-solving self-identifying mode?
3. Aside from societal ignorance and compassion fatigue, what are other challenges that electracy will face in it’s attempts to achieve it’s goal of educating individuals and societies with the goal of creating new politics, ethics and education (thus making the world a better place)?