"All minds quote"
Recent Comments in this Document
-
in the second sentence, “[…] are concerned that the transformation that is occurring in our society may even spell out the death of the book and a decline in the amount of meaningful literature being created.” The author is referencing a book but does not make it clear that he is talking about “The Gutenberg Elegies” or literal books themselves. could strengthen the idea of what Sven Birkerts argument is.
Also using the words “outraged” and “troubled” before saying the authors name draws conclusions on how the authors feel before reading the text. Could be seen was gathering a hypothesis because of an opinion. It doesn’t represent who the authors are.
-
Play. An instrument to play with unfathomable quantity of textual material. How might we rethink research and brainstorming and reading as ‘playing’?
-
situs slot luar negeri
Self-Reliance | Wreading Parlor
-
Tracking terms/keywords: specialization/specialties is used 5 times in this paragraph alone. Definitely on Berry’s mind as a concern.
-
This is a relatable paragraph, I saw this a lot while I was in high school. People are trying to find the right crowd to be apart of, and to some extent they are even changing who they are to be accepted, and to meet these “requirements” to fit into a group. As a young teenager there is a lot of pressure to fit in. There tends to be a gap between people who care about their academic and those who are less focused on their performance in school. However in paragraph 37 it talks about how this gap is being closed through sports despite individual differences.
-
Grant Sopa
I agree with the idea that you do not need to be book smart in order to be an intellectual. Having these “streets smarts” are almost as much or more important in the real world than knowing about history of the world. Also, I believe that being book smart is not just being smart, it is a form of repetition that anyone can learn if they study enough. Being intellectually street smart has more value.
-
Darrell Rideout II
I actually find this paragraph interesting because I read huckleberry Finn in 9th grade. I remember reading Huckleberry Finn and thinking about how smart and resourceful he was for just a kid even though he was illiterate. This book is a great case of hidden intellectualism that can help school students understand the concept of hidden intellectualism.
-
bio fit supplement
Hidden Intellectualism | Wreading Parlor
-
Raegan Moran
Overall, I think the authors essay is very strong. The mentors aligned with the authors argument and evidence was accurately backed up with sufficient reasoning. However, my main critique would be proper grammar (ex. sentence 2) Checking this essay, and specifically this concluding paragraph, through Grammarly would improve this essay.
sam
Brynn
Comments by Commenter
Hello admin, i must say you have very interesting posts here.
Your blog should go viral. You need initial traffic only.
How to get it? Search for: Mertiso’s tips go viral
What, then, is the purpose of pivotal ideals, such as politics and morality? Ideals of this ilk are centered around differing in opinions and a semi-relevant “argumentativeness” but, in society, they carry significant weight on everyday life. “Street sense” can play a role in our philosophies as people (through many different scopes) and ignoring something that monumental is to ignore some very humane elements of a person’s personality.
Regarding the final sentence of this paragraph, I feel that I simultaneously relate and do not to the author’s own experience. I did, as a child, read with both pleasure and comprehension. However, I also displayed intelligence in ways that are not considered academically fruitful, particularly for a small child. I would ‘act up’ consistently in class and be forced to sit alone in a corner- it was because I was easily distracted from the work at hand and preferred, instead, to create elaborate fictions and ‘clubs’ with my classmates. My active imagination proved a detriment to my academic life unless it was channeled into the classwork that I was provided. However, upon looking back, I now realize that my academic achievements and behavioral concerns were from the same source; it was just that only one was particularly appreciated by teachers.
As most children do, I had rather high self-esteem at the time, so I did consider myself ‘intelligent’. The author, who states he originally described his adolescence as “thoroughly anti-intellectual” may not have. However, I feel that he and I can find some common ground here- though my academic skills and behavioral issues seemed at odds, they were actually drawn from the same source. Today, I can still relate to the idea of analysis of pop culture seeming inferior to such things as Plato, nuclear fission, etc.. Though I read Foucault and political theory, I also devote plenty of theorizing to pop culture and what it means for people on a societal level. To some, such analysis may seem vapid- “what could Nicki Minaj have to teach me?”- but it is actually quite important, not ‘anti-intellectual’.
I believe that lessons in school should be less of a lecture and more of a discussion. From personal experience, activities in which students are assigned a certain point of view and are required to debate their point help students be more comfortable. I agree with the quote from The Shopping Mall High School, “Agreement is far more common than antagonism.” Students are often uncomfortable with sharing their own opinions and being independent; however, I do not agree with Graft’s use of the word “argue.” I understand the idea of disagreeing with peers, but “argue” sounds too aggressive.
The idea of our decreased attention spans and interests due to increased use of the internet is interesting. Websites, like Google, give us access to information very rapidly, and with very little effort on our part. This results in limited interest and effort in full independent research and thinking.
While the internet’s effects on readers are being criticized, there are many benefits that the internet presents to users. Websites like Google enable people to research and learn about any topic they wish. Any questions can be answered through such search engines and websites. While it seems to have negative effects on the reading habits and skills of people today, the internet has positive effects on the range and amount of intellectuals in the world today.
I thought it was a very interesting notion that the author introduced an idea of “overlooked intellectual abilities”, that are sometimes not viewed as highly as other well-known topics. I think in this day in age that has possibly limited students to certain curriculums and more strict standards in classrooms. I remember learning in class a few years ago about how some schools considered removing the letter-grading system. It’s just interesting to imagine how things would turn out if our “buried or hidden forms of intellectualism” were able to show in projects or classroom activities.
When Graff discusses his childhood, he says that he was more interested in sports instead of reading. He was told by those he saw as older and wiser that this was anti-intellectual. As he grew older and learned more about intellectualism, he realized that his skills were “not anti-intellectualism so much as intellectualism by other means.” For so many others like Graff, finding intellectualism in different disciplines is considered anti-intellectual. Standardized exams test a strict curriculum that all students are required to understand. But some students intellectualism may not lay in the subjects tested. Graff describes the nerds of his generation as those who exceeded in science, math, and technology. This stereotype is still mostly intact, and Graff states that those “masters of argument or cultural analysis” are not recognized for their intellectual ability.
Intellectual people are easy to identify in subjects like math, science, and technology, however; those proficient in other areas such as argumentation and cultural analysis are not recognized as regularly for their talents. Graff’s fight to recognize those of “intellectualism by other means” is one many readers can connect to.
Carr argues that as we utilize technology more, the more we must have to fight to stay focused. He says that he found his concentration drifting on long pieces of reading, and that something had definitely changed in him as a reader as he began reading longer pieces of literature online as well as completing a majority of his research online. Since technology makes reading and research easier, it is no surprise that it is becoming the desired choice for most readers. The activity of reading has always been changing and it is to be expected that our brains are molding to this new style of reading. Humans began learning by oral tradition, then moved to paper text, and now we are in the time period of online texts. These adaptions are possible due to brain plasticity, according to Carr. Each different adaption is a different type of reading that requires a different type of thinking. The type of writing equipment used also plays a part in forming our thoughts. Google is not making us stupid, it is simply changing our style of reading. Just like paper text did not make us stupid, online reading is not making us stupid, it is simply different.
What is the traditional sense? Each generation adds something new to society that is seen as nontraditional and somewhat scary to the older generations. As oral tradition was phased out to make room for paper text, I’m sure the generation that trusted oral stories was upset and confused when paper was preferred. Each generation fights with the younger generation about their choices, even though the older generation had the same fights with the generation before them about the same thing. It is useless to fight the new style of reading because at some point it will be updated again and another old generation will have more negative comments for the new and improved style.
I find this paragraph to be quite ironic in a sense where the author said that he found the sports world to be MORE intellectual than school. This is interesting because most people would say that athletes have no brains to do school and sports that normally you either choose school or sports. The fact that the author brought up how important being introduced to sports is, helps back up his statement. Sports help children build relationships and help view things from different perspectives they would than just reading a book. I think it is cool that the author also says that the school world can learn a thing or two from the sports world, because normally this is said in reverse, that the sports world is not cultured, and athletes should spend more time hitting the books not weights.
In this entire essay, Emerson uses a unique diction and sentence structure. His sentences are somewhat run on sentences and he uses a unique choice of words. For example the second sentence seems to run on for a quarter of the paragraph, and also the sentence that starts with “The patent-office commissioner” and ends the paragraph. This would fall under the poetic category.
In this particular paragraph, he talks to us about how everything has been “quoted” or reinvented. Everything even books are being undated from old to new. This goes hand in hand with what he wrote in “The American Scholar,” how reading in the past is dangerous and we should write books according to a new age.
In this particular paragraph of Emerson’s “Self Reliance,” he focuses on philosophy. My initial thoughts after seeing this paragraph linked directly to Montaigne and his philosophy described in “of Repentance.” In this particular excerpt, Emerson writes how we as men need to accept our roles as guides, leaders, and other high figures in this world. We as men need to move on from acting cowardly and walk with the almighty and fear no evil. This is similar to Montaigne’s philosophy that we need to be our own self and not carry any unnecessary weight of other people’s judgement’s because in the end only we know ourselves. Both Emerson and Montaigne in this excerpt speak of better ourselves for a greater purpose. This connects to the title of the essay “Self Reliance,” because Emerson believes that we are reliant on ourselves to become the best person we can be and accept our roles in this world, because nobody is stopping us but us.
The title fits the article very well because of the many “intriguing implications” that Warner comes up with.
I strongly believe that today’s education system demands similar, if not same profiles. It almost reminds me of a factory producing the same product.More weightage is being given to being literate or well read rather than being well educated.An individual is categorized as worthy or unworthy for admission based on his/her literary skills, SAT scores for example, but very little importance is given to life experiences or other non-literary skills that an individual has to offer to the school society.As Albert Einstein once said – “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
I also agree that I believe its good that teachers try to break that barrier of the “latent intellectual” trying to come out. I think its very hard for students to automatically show their latent intellectual because they don’t do it on their own, on a daily basis so they think they need to hide it and just wait for it to be found when its time.
In this paragraph, I can definitely relate to Carr. When I read in middle school, it was great! When i reached high school and now college, after i read a page or so, I start to think about other things and then ending up having to reread everything because i was just reading the words and not focusing on the book at all. Carr shares with us about how it is a struggle to sit still and focus on a literature nowadays for him and his concentration drifts away after awhile. Deeper reading requires you to be 100% focused and concentrated to interpret the literature that you are reading.
Many may not know this but, technology makes slight changes and is being updated every day for us. Do we notice unless we get a notification about an update? No. We depend on technology for basically everything in our daily lives. Technology has played an excessive role in our generation. Compared to generations before, technology wasn’t as dependable and wasn’t a priority in their daily lives like us. Technology changes us as a person every day, we don’t get a notification about it and we don’t notice just like technology makes slight updates every day but we don’t notice it.
It is ironic he brings the point up of how we view our teachers or mentors as people that only focus on academics. We forget that they are human like us and they also have a life they live on a daily basis. Although they may not convey their interests in the classroom, a lot of these teachers have a love for different hobbies such as music, sports, art, etc. I could relate a lot with this because of the fact there were times I would see a teacher from a school in a store and it would catch me off guard because of the fact that they also have a life to take care of outside the academic sphere.
This particular paragraph sticks out to me because it reminds me of the awkwardness of seeing elementary and middle school teachers out in public. They used to joke that they had lives outside of the classroom. Up to this point, Graff has made me recognize the idea that adults can possess the “street smarts” that young students believe they have. They can go out and play sports or grocery shop like any other young person. I realize that while students think there are multiple levels of intellectual abilities they bring to school, teachers also are not strictly professional people and can think on the same pop culture wavelength as their students. I think many different ways of thinking and communicating can be reached in schools by simply finding common ground between each other.
While students cramming helps them to memorize the material, they often do not fully understand the concepts being taught to them. A good (and passionate) teacher who engages students in debates and discussions about the material is necessary. Without it, students simply memorize and forget. Professors and teachers who explain and delve into the “why” of topics help students to form and solidify their own ideas. This in turn helps them to recognize their intellect even if it is not a traditional form.
I can definitely relate to this. I feel as though the time I spend on the internet (especially the time I spend doing mindless things) has affected my attention span and my interest in reading, especially online. Birkerts mentioned this as well, that the convenience and accessibility of the internet has led to a decreased interest in devoting time to reading
This is definitely scary to think about, that the big companies in control are constantly working to reprogram how we think. They use data collected from countless users to figure out basic profiles for each type of internet user, and then try to determine how they can use that information to best benefit them
I agree that schools don’t always tap into the intellectualism of each of its students. Although it may be hard to tap into each students own mind I feel as if in many cases kids are very smart but are unable to display their knowledge through the system instilled by the schools. I think if schools altered techniques to try and tap into different students intellectualism results would be extremely positive and influential in the development of students.
This paragraph exploited a lot of truths about the net that I could relate to personally. In the world of media where news is presented through short excerpts rather than lengthy texts our minds begin to adapt to the new style of news gathering. This paragraph makes perfect sense of this idea claiming how media not only shapes the process of the thought but chips away drive for concentration and contemplation. Hence why it has become so hard for me to engage myself in a novel for extended periods of time without drifting off. My mind desires a new source of entertainment, something that’ easy to find on the next where your screen presents endless links to alternate sources of enjoyment.
This paragraph sheds light on an issue I tend to think about a lot. With the new style 0f reading the internet forces we tend to create shortcuts to gather information. Referred to in this paragraph as humans becoming “decoders,” our ability to read lengthy texts is damaged as when reading a novel we can’t settle for decoding the text as a deeper focus is required to gain the full message of the story.
I wonder what exactly made him to declare himself as an “Atheist” and is the word “queer” a way of sugar coating that he is a homosexual?
Carr states that, now, he loses concentration and focus when reading novels. He becomes “fidgety” and that his “deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle,”. I could instantly relate! I was obsessed with reading from since kindergarten to middle school. However, when I reached high school, reading became an elegiac exercise for me. I can not get through a certain amount of pages without feeling drowsy even if it’s the most interesting book I’ve read.
I agree, personally. I think that my lack of sleep in general has contributed to the same problem,but my overuse of my cell phone or the Internet plays a role. In this generation, we are more likely to pick up our cell phones or go on YouTube when we are bored instead of read as a past time.
That is why reading a specific abstract novel can make me so lethargic. Since my brain is used to acquiring information on the Internet or from other sources in the blink of an eye, it does not take time to analyze beyond the surface.
This leads to illiteracy ! This argument was used in Birkerts’ piece.
Wolf explains this sense of immediacy and it made me realize this in myself. I do this more often and I think. It’s a terrible habit that has made me lack my comprehension ability.
A simple clock became the “driver” of human actions as technology and electronic reading has became the “driver” of human analying,etc.
Then, our bodies followed an internal clock to correspond with an external one.
So is Internet just as efficient and needed just like Taylor’s manufacturing method?
How can we be better off if the goal is for the human brains to develop the cognitive ability of machines? I thought that the human brain was a precious thing to waste.
This quote is a first hand piece of evidence that shows how history can recreate itself. As Socrates feared about the new pivotal changes in literature, many of those from older generations fear how technological advances may negatively impact the minds of those in future generations.
There is always a downside to every advance.
[ reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds.]
This is the central point of Carr’s argument. The last two paragraphs before this shows his rebuttal.
[it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.]
…While the artificial intelligence created by humans surpasses our own sense of intelligence.
I think this paragraph is very interesting because teachers focus more on what students with disabilities can’t do rather than focusing on what that student can achieve. Graff makes a very good point when saying “There must be many buried or hidden forms of intellectual that do not get channeled into academic work but might if schools were more alert about tapping into them.” Maybe if the teachers are more aware of the disabilities that many students suffer from then more students will be encouraged to take a course or be more motivated to do well in that subject.
I found paragraph 13 to be interesting and could be essential to an argument that could support either Birkerts or McLuhan as we see that our minds learn how to read. Reading and writing are not programmed in our brains it’s an ability to read and comprehend the letters words phrases that are in a piece. Our human ability to adapt could potentially make us have shorter attention span because the web has so much information that we look for the key components and leave out the rest. This could be seen as a positive to some and a negative to others but it would appear our comprehension would not change since we still understand what we are reading even if we lose some connection to the writing or not.
As said in the previous paragraph, our attention span seems to be diminishing as an effect of Google and the internet. We are so used to getting information relatively fast so reading seems to take too long and be and inefficient way of retrieving information. When we have Google, the information can be retrieved in seconds. It is hard to force yourself to spend the time reading and finding the information yourself knowing that it can be found in the click of a button with Google.
I think part of the reason why people have such a hard time accepting the increasing use of technology in our lives is because of this idea that it has such a “broad influence over our thoughts.” No technology before has played such a huge role in our lives. It’s interesting to think of it as “reprogramming” our minds.
I feel as though the term “hacking” can be used in many contexts. Monson talks about hacking a computer system. To hack means to gain access of material and learn the results of whats within the walls. When a person reads an essay that is what they are doing. They are reading and trying to gain access of what the author is trying to portray to the reader. We are all trying to “hack” this essay to evaluate its meaning.
I feel that Emerson opens up to us and describes something he wants us to think about. The poetics of this essay starts by using a large scale of insects, and relates how they relate to civilization, and then along to a book. This essay’s philosophy begins as an imitation of thought and then leads to human thought. Emerson says, “Our high respect for a well-read man is praise enough of literature.” I feel as though this quote of his is showing the up most respect for a man who has read a lot of books. He will be a “good reader”, and know a lot about life. Including the insect world…
I feel as this goes along and supports paragraph 2. “Do not seek outside yourself”. It putting it into other terms meaning that, “you’re your own star”. Stars are bright and shinning, and I feel that Emerson is hinting that your are valuable in your own way.
I believe that as said in paragraph 13, “It is a matter of finding points of convergence and translations, moments when students’ discourse can be translated into academic discourse and vice versa”. That teachers and professors that are dealing with finding some kind of converging point between an outside intelligence and turning it into an academic intelligence are like translating a language. A teacher must first be able to read or speak one intellectual language to be able to transform that language. The teachers have to almost assimilate the two languages so they are universal.
[ Since argumentativeness is often viewed by schools as a form of troublemaking or “acting out” rather than as apprentice intellectualism, students themselves may not recognize the academic potential of their argumentative talents.]
Students often find themselves not being able to disagree or argue with teachers as it is deemed as “acting out” as the quote above mentions. I believe that this is unfair to both the students and the teacher. The students are unable to express themselves and explore any deeper intelligence that they might have. Many teachers teach too much, what I mean by that is that they do not allow for their students to take part in their work.
I agree with Graff that school has been before any outside activities like sports. Today schools still struggle to engage students in learning when they wish to be outside or to do something they love. Having teachers bring real world problems into the classroom does engage the students more into the material but it can be hard to incorporate the outside material into class everyday.
I believe this statement, “intellectual was not in my vocabulary or that of my friends” is still true today. I know in my hometown, and everyday in my high school I would always hear “Oh, you actually did that homework?” or “You understand this stuff? You must be one of those (insert any word BUT intellectual here.)” I don’t think I’ve ever heard the word ‘Intellectual’ being used to describe someone who excelled at schoolwork or were exceptional at nearly anything but recreations (not that I’m saying I would hear someone say “He’s so intellectual!” if they were talking about someone skateboarding..)
f girls had a grasp on a certain concept and knew what they were talking about, they were immediately considered “stuck-up” or a snob; for boys it was the opposite- you weren’t a ‘man’ if you had an understanding of the work to be done in, or outside of, school. I know I speak from personal experience, and maybe it’s true for others, but I know this paragraph particularly connects with me because of where I grew up.
As with McLuhan, Carr really drives home the matter of fact problem with how much people today use the internet. Today, people expect to type it into a database, and it be there in less than a second. Carr connects this with his own experiences of how he has come to find himself learning. The metaphor at the end of this paragraph is fairly interesting and really sets a picture up for the reader to identify with.
I agree with Carr here to an extent. I understand the drifting of concentration after two and three pages, but then again it leads me to question what he is reading and how interesting the subject of his concentration is. I often find myself drifting from one set of tasks to another because it simply doesn’t interest me. But if i can actually dig deep and get into whatever I’m doing, I rarely lose concentration and can complete the task at hand with ease. A lot of factors play into the problem of losing concentration. As aforementioned, how interesting the subject is to you, or where you are trying to complete your reading. Factors play in to these kinds of things and one can’t blame it all on the internet and how much time you spend on it each day.
I agree with Graff in this paragraph where he states that schools tend to see that argumentation as a form a conflict. I do not believe it is a form of conflict, but instead a way to express your ideas even if they don’t always agree with someone else. The point of school in my perspective is to teach you how to better express your ideas through the learning of argument techniques. If we are not taught how to properly handle a conflict and be able to back up our opinions, we will just avoid it, as Graff states. How are we supposed to better the world and discover new things with we are not able to support our findings through arguments?
*argumentation is a form of conflict.
Not as.
*discover new things when
Not with.
Not with
I think this is an interesting comment on the way the internet has changed us. Carr takes it beyond simply saying that the internet has negative effects on how we think; instead he is claiming that the internet has already changed how we think altogether.
I find it interesting how Carr uses research in his argument because it is a great strengthening technique. Another person previously, commented on this paragraph that people skim because all the information in an argument isn’t necessary. However, if it were a solid, believable, and well-written argument then we shouldn’t have to skim as readers. Every sentence in the work should have something to contribute to the author’s main point. As Baron points out, the internet is a place in which any person can write, good or bad; it is then the job of the reader to skip over the bad information. In my opinion, I agree with Baron that the internet facilitates all forms of writing, but it is affecting the way we read and think.
“not even the most obsessed baseball fan thinks “eternal life and death” hang on which team one chooses to follow.”
Coming from the Boston area I thought this was funny because of how deeply rooted the rivalry between the Red Sox and the Yankees is. My dad has a coffee mug that reads, “Jesus loves the Red Sox and Hates the Yankees” which hints at the idea that Jesus will punish Yankee fans leading to eternal death by following the wrong North Eastern team.
This reminded me of what Birkerts had to say where he thinks that people are going too fast with technology and not slowing down and really thinking about what they are doing. I think it is possible to slow down and still read and write the way that you used to but I agree that it is easy to become distracted and not want to read lengthy material. I liked how he described his old and new habits in terms of a scuba diver, which is more in depth and about taking your time, rather than jet ski which is all about quickness but still enjoying the same environment as the scuba diver.
I liked how he backed up his anecdotes with actual research from reputable sources when Birkerts and other authors who we had been reading only quoted their own experiences or their opinions it was easy to just say that it was their opinion and just take it at face value. Knowing that there is definitive research on the subject does not really leave room for as much argument about the subject and opinions no longer matter so you have to analyze and interpret the information yourself. I liked how he continued with the sea metaphor from previous paragraphs. I would usually rebuff the idea that people really don’t really do research anymore but I am definitely one of those people who only reads enough snippets of research to support my argument and then that is it. I rarely go back and continue to read an article after I already pulled the information that I needed from it.
Graff is pointing out a problem that a lot of kids who are in school now are having. We go to school to learn but some of the classes and what we learn in those classes give no interest to certain individuals. There is criteria that every student must learn, but there should also be more classes that are intellectual interests such as clothing fashions, sports history, cars, and subjects of that nature.
I believe using the web on a long piece of writing helps a lot, and the more research you do on the web for a long piece, the more information you will have even if you find things you weren’t originally looking for.
The availability of books lead to greatness, which is just the opposite of what Squarciafico thought would happen. The printing press started something incredible.
My experience as a high school student included students constantly being engaged in arguments mostly in the form of a debate. These debates could include both intellectual or anti-intellectual topics such as politics, sports, school, cars, or even other students. However, these debates, regardless of the topic would always be in an intellectual manner meaning that students would present an argument and then support it with information or statistics to try and convince the other that they are correct. I believe that students don’t view their argumentative skills as intelligence, but as a skill gifted to some but not others such as running or memorization. Instead, most students never even consider how the two could be connected and as a result can miss out on an important skill that signifies intelligence. For example, one student I knew believed that he was not intelligent because he struggled in school. However, whenever there was a debate he would always be involved and he would appear to come out victorious very often because he was excellent at communicating his supporting information and countering the other debater’s information. Since schools never talk about the relationship between intelligence and argumentative skills, students can miss out on intelligence that they do not even know they have.
The development of technology has lead to a decrease in attention span. Becoming fidgety after two or three pages is less of an indicator of a decrease in intelligence but instead is showing the effect of technology on our brains instead. Along with the development of technology comes the shortening of texts. For example, news articles are no longer pages long but instead brief summaries, or even shortened down to 140 character tweets. In my opinion, Carr’s personal experience does not display an increase of stupidity but instead a decrease in his attention span.
Paragraphs 6 & 7 in my opinion really reinforce Carr’s argument as it shows some positives to the internet. These two paragraphs show that Carr’s purpose is not simply to bash the internet, to oppose the development of technology, or yell at the younger generation but instead to alarm the public of something he has observed. These two paragraphs open up reader’s minds and allow for Carr’s argument to develop afterwards.
Hello, i think that i noticed you visited my weblog so i got
here to return the prefer?.I’m trying to to find things to improve my website!I suppose
its good enough to use a few of your ideas!!
I find it interesting that he states “For girls, being articulate and brainy about schoolwork was a sign of being conceited or “stuck-up,” whereas for boys it marked one as a sissy.” in todays time (at least from my perspective) girl who are articulate and brainy aren’t perceived as stuck up but sometimes avoided because of their intellect by boys who aren’t as intellectual. On the other hand I do believe that boy who are articulate and brainy are perceived (not from my perspective) as sissy for some odd reason.
I find this to be one of the most interesting paragraphs because it takes the two different lives and aspects of young people and trie to merge them together. Everyone has a bank of street smarts and a bank of academic smarts, these two banks are tpically “practiced” far apart from one another. I think Gruff is saying that if society merges these two banks of knowledge, then those with more street smarts will be able to flourish just as much as those with more academic intelligence. I thought it was interesting that Gruff also points out how street smarts and book smarts are a sort of bilingualism. A person who is able to speak two languages, can often relate to more people due to cultural awareness and they are able to think more cohesively in either language. I never realized that someone possesses and equal amount of street smarts and book smarts may be the easiest person to relate too.
Graff makes a good point in saying that “we tend to assume that intellectual distinction can be manifested only with bookish subject matter.” In many cases, whether or not you are an intellectual is defined by whether or not you can understand the text you just read in class, or whether or not you got an A on that exam. Who is to say that we cannot wax poetic or create strong arguments on topics such as sports or TV? Why does society view these topics as something “anti-intellectual?” Another question is also raised by this paragraph: if schools found a way to tie the “anti-intellectual” and “intellectual” discourses together, would more kids benefit from their academic studies?
This is the beginning of Carr’s argument. There is an obvious set up that is leading into what will be talked about: the internet has made it hard to focus on large amounts of text. This is something I can relate to, as I used to be able to immerse myself in books really easily (I still can, if my interest is held) but now find that it’s hard to me to keep a solid focus. This is a solid lead in into what will further be constructed as Carr’s argument.
It’s interesting to see how media is affecting reading from a neurological standpoint. This is a very different view from what has been exposed recently, which all tends to be generally biased. Having actual neurological evidence for this phenomena helps strengthen Carr’s argument.
Through this paragraph the author is trying to emphasise the importance or arguments in a classroom. The author also talks about how “a clash of ideas” is important and is something that helps learners grow, rather than what is commonly believed as arguments leading to a negative outcome. This paragraph also talks about kids specifically and how they are good at fighting out ideas and debating them, I find this interesting as I believe the author is using this to state that schools should start allowing students to debate at young ages, so they build that skill throughout there academic career.
I find this paragraph by Carr very interesting because I feel it is relatable to our generation. Technology is changing the way our brains and bodies are able to focus on tasks. Sometimes I find myself not being able to focus on a whole movie without picking up my phone when I get the slightest feeling of boredom. The lack of focus makes it difficult to read full novels and stories because we are distracted by the world around us.
As I was reading this paragraph, I was intrigued by the idea that arguing was seen as acting out and being troublesome. Today (as compared to the 1950s in which the author writes), I feel as though arguing and debating is seen in a better light and is encouraged. In high school and even in college, some classes would be devoted to debates whether it was about historical issues or scientific findings and evidence. Also, debate teams are popular and, if we think about current jobs, lawyers and even businessmen need to be able to argue to prove their point. The idea that arguing is a sign of trouble seems to be outdated in this generation (which is logical since there is approximately a 68 year time difference between the author’s schooling and this current year). Due to believing that arguing is a skill and not just “acting out,” students in this generation are able to understand that arguing has academic potential.
I understand how Carr feels in this paragraph. For me, I had a love of reading, but once I got into social media I didn’t really read deeply anymore. My friends and family would send me links to online articles and I would barely skim them just so I would have an idea of what the article was about. I couldn’t focus myself to read a 5-page article. I feel as though this example strengthens Carr’s argument due to it being relatable.
This is a little unsettling in a way that the artificial intelligence could potentially take over our world. Would we really be better off if our brain was supplemented? I don’t think so. In a way, I feel as though we could be easily manipulated by computers/artificial intelligence. The feeling of a technological device gaining more power than a human due to having super-human intelligence almost scares me. Our brains work perfectly fine and can be enhanced by doing more research and reading. We do not need artificial intelligence to supplement us.
in the past, being Intellectual would be looked down upon, especially if you where a woman. It would be conceived as being so call stuck-up. But boys or men would be looked at as being sissy’s. In this day in age though, there are a lot of people not being afraid to be smart or Intellectual and our society is a little more accepting but still have some negative outlooks on the people that are intellectual.
I thought this section of the essay was particularly interesting. I think that the thoughts of what kinds of advantages will students get from school in the “real world” has popped into every student’s head at least once. What is the point in learning the Pythagorean theorem instead of learning to pay taxes, or what taxes are for that matter. I knew many students at my high school that were not intellectuals but were smart in different ways. I had one friend that almost failed out of high school but had such a passion for theater, give her any part in a play and she will play it as if it was her last performance. I had another friend who simply had no interest in school, however when it came to world and American history knew every thing i had learned in an AP class he had never taken, simply because he had only interest in history. Another friend I had was and is a certifiable genius. He had dreams of becoming an organic chemist one day, a very difficult field in chemistry. He got nearly a perfect scores on his SATs but had D’s in every class simply because he was bored. I believe not only smarts but genius exists in many other forms other than the ones schools teach us about, To discourage these behaviors in a school setting is essentially murdering genius itself.
This part of the article was particularly fascinating to me. Many peope assume it is the younger generation that is so distracted when here a doctor and professor confesses he can’t read an article more than 4 paragraphs. Not much can be established in 4 paragraphs so to think people are just skimming after that point is crazy. It seems like they might be missing big pieces of the writing.
I feel like one of the biggest factors to consider in situations like these is time. Because technology has become so fast and efficient we are expected to do more in a day compared to when internet was not as popular. I for one know I don’t read as much unless I’m required to for school because I simply have no time for it. In fact I rarely have any down time. This could be a big factor of why people have stopped reading and started skimming.
As I am reading this paragraph, I get stuck on the blatant spoken idea that is expressed by the writer that argumentativeness is viewed as a form of troublemaking and not viewed in an intellectual way. I think it makes the passage a little biased not stating anything about how argumentativeness is intellectual. In most situations that I have been a part of in an academic setting, arguing is most of the time seen as intellectual and is used to express ideas and drive home points. I can also see how the idea about argumentation can be said because of the idea that it is influenced by region, ethnicity and class. I grew up in an incredibly rural town with little to no diversity, and this very well could have influence over why the argumentation that I experienced often did not seem like acting out. I also do agree that I don’t think students see their potential, and I think that’s most students in all areas, ones with great diversity and ones with none. This could also have to deal with the age group that is most likely being spoken about in this context; under 18. At this time most kids aren’t confident in what they say, and this could cause a decrease in speaking out intellectually or not. I do agree that learning how to defend your interests and ideas is important to stand up for yourself and what you think is right, and a way that I think teachers could maybe help encourage eager participation would be to be more accepting of answers even if they are wrong, and maybe calling on students that know the answer instead of embarrassing students that don’t; let them learn to grow out of their shell.
It’s interesting to see how having intelligence and excelling in school has often been degrading and made fun of. However, at the same time it is expected and praised by others. It is also interesting to see Graff’s perspective on how he used to see the “cultured” and stereotype them.
I found this article interesting because I too have struggled occasionally with concentrating on a text. However, most times its the text itself that is the problem, and not my lack of attention. Some texts are harder to read then others and will take more time. I find this part of the argument a bit non-persuasive.
The evidence that is been used is very strong, both the literary related and psychology related. I find the science of this paragraph interesting and persuasive towards his larger implications.
Monson makes it very clear that how we go about writing is changing as our technology is changing. The original ‘technology’ of newspapers and other various prints are becoming outdated. We are moving towards online writing that can appear to be more engaging and up-to-date. I believe this to be the case as well because of the dramatic rise in technology and the desire millennials and others to be connected and informed.
“The originals are not original.”
Through reading Emerson’s “Quotation and Originality” I believe to see there is no originality in life, rather we spend our lives recycling what we already know, going through a cycle of “invent[ing] and re-invent[ing] over and over” (paragraph 3). Emerson states “the originals are not original” to support the idea that we are just reusing what we already know, essentially “quoting”, in this case ‘life’. The statement “the originals are not original” is fairly depressing, as it tries to undermine my creativity, yet at the same time challenges me to attempt to expand my creative thought and ideas.
I agree with the thoughts Graff gets into throughout paragraph 17. Not only playing a sport, but doing other activities to keep you active both mentally and physically will make you a better intellectual. You do not necessarily have to read complex or long books to gain intelligence, rather read something that interests you and keeps you focused on what the author is presenting. Also, being proactive learners both through school and sport will grow your knowledge and overall well being. Lastly, the earlier you start becoming an intellectual the better off you will be in the long run due to the experience you have already gained.
I have noticed you don’t monetize fannelsbranch.com,
don’t waste your traffic, you can earn additional bucks every month.
There is one good way that brings decent money, you
can google it: money making by bucksflooder
I see you don’t monetize fannelsbranch.com, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn extra cash every month with new monetization method.
This is the best adsense alternative for any type of website (they approve
all sites), for more details simply search in gooogle: murgrabia’s tools
I have noticed you don’t monetize your website, don’t waste your traffic, you can earn extra bucks every month.
You can use the best adsense alternative for any type of website (they approve all websites), for more details simply search in gooogle: boorfe’s tips
monetize your website
bio fit supplement
Hidden Intellectualism | Wreading Parlor
situs slot luar negeri
Self-Reliance | Wreading Parlor
토토사이트검증
Hidden Intellectualism | Wreading Parlor
I agree with Carr saying that it is harder to stay focused when reading a piece of text using the internet. With as many distractions that internet has between ads and distractions on the sides of the pages. I also do not see a difference between a book and an online piece of text. Personally, I think its just what some prefer and can focus on more.
This paragraph shows the Carr wanted to get the attention of a great amount of readers allowing them to relate to Carr’s difficulties. Not only does this problem happen to him, but it happens to various people where they would also doze off after a page or two. Personally, this happens to me if I am not interested in the text that I am reading where I drag and tend to take notes to keep me up with what I am reading.
In this paragraph of his essay, “Self-Reliance,” Ralph Waldo Emerson pushes forth an interesting concept to the reader. The point that Emerson is pursuing, which was also present in prior paragraphs, is that all men must eventually accept the irreversible aspects of reality that have been thrust upon them, and trust their own instincts and inclinations to mold the world around them to their advantage. This common theme which is present not only in this paragraph, but the essay as a whole, is individuality; hence the essay being titled “Self-Reliance.” Returning back to the concept of this specific paragraph, Emerson is encouraging the reader to break off from the generic and collective body of society and forge their own path. In doing so, those who differ from the generic will be known, not as outsiders, but as triumphant exemplars. By breaking off from the commonplace, men become paragons in their own right. As stated previously, not only in this paragraph, but throughout the entire essay, Emerson is encouraging the reader to be their own individual and to ignore the temptations of conforming to the generics of reality.
It is a common argument within the school system in my hometown that students should be evaluated on their “intellectual abilities” rather than just their “book smarts.” County Board of Education members continue to debate on this subject each year, and come to no compromise. Although most agree that students should be evaluated on their intellectual abilities, funding is scarce even for the academic classes much less for classes focused on intellectual skills. I believe that all school systems should seriously consider figuring ways to add classes based on “street smarts” so that all students experience a well-rounded education in academic subjects, yet understand how to function in different aspects of society.
As the internet increases our demand for speed, our minds lose interest in tasks even quicker than before. The internet gives us access to information within seconds, satisfying our present question. Although, the internet has trained our minds to the point where if a reading doesn’t get to the point within a couple paragraphs, we lose interest. Therefore, in a sense Google is training our minds to ignore an author’s elaboration.
Nine years later in 2017, people have become more open to using the internet in everyday life. Its “intellectual ethic” has become one of the main resources used in academia. Internet is a requirement for most, if not all, assignments and has been a useful source to allow for timely assignment completion. The times where papers would take weeks to complete when looking through books for information have left us. Now, moderate length papers can be completed within a week due to online academic journals, electronic encyclopedias, online books, etc. Although, print books should not be done away with since they are a source of concrete history in the case that information found on the internet is inaccurate. The internet’s “intellectual ethic” is now clear in the face of academia.
I think that these paragraphs tie in quite nicely with what the author mentioned in earlier in paragraph 17 when he states, “…my preference for sports over schoolwork was not anti-intellectualism so much as intellectualism by other means.” Here he expands upon that thought by mentioning how seemingly interconnected the intellectual world (analysis and argument) can be with the philistine (sports). Yes, baseball is simply a game but it is unlikely that one could argue that Jackie Robinson breaking baseball’s color line would not hold significance in intellectual circles when the topic of racism came up. Graff continues on in the next section to say that this very interest in sports was what showed him how to craft and understand the inner workings of argument and analysis that led him to the professional academic he is today. Therefore, wouldn’t you think it would be important for people to follow non-intellectual pursuits similarly as intellectual ones?
It is interesting that the author is choosing to use McLuhan’s idea in this way. Throughout The Medium is the Massage McLuhan states this idea in a couple different ways. However, in the same book McLuhan reinforces the idea that is natural for change to occur and to resent the tools of the upcoming age… like Google.
It is true that Carr diverges from Birkerts in the aspect of considering others opinions, however, how much do you think the experience between Carr and his friends are similar? He mentions that they are literary types, like Carr, and also most likely the same age. I feel that it would be more important to consider a perspective dissimilar from one that you could relate, like that of someone growing up in the digital age. This would provide more insight than asking a group of people that you relate to, like Carr’s friends.
This is a relatable paragraph, I saw this a lot while I was in high school. People are trying to find the right crowd to be apart of, and to some extent they are even changing who they are to be accepted, and to meet these “requirements” to fit into a group. As a young teenager there is a lot of pressure to fit in. There tends to be a gap between people who care about their academic and those who are less focused on their performance in school. However in paragraph 37 it talks about how this gap is being closed through sports despite individual differences.
I found that was said about the concept of an interconnectedness of book smarts and street smarts to immediately tangible in everyday life, from what we learn from we witness to what we read and hear. Barbara Mikulski is the first person that comes to mind for me as an incredible intellectual as a policy maker, which is defined by her work as a social worker in Baltimore. Using the skills she learned in the field allows her to create effective policy and have dimensional debates, illustrating the link between knowledge from the real world and from the classroom.
Just from reading the first paragraph got me hooked and very interested in reading this essay. I always get excited when reading the beginning of a passage and automatically getting hooked, because honestly a lot of the time I have a hard time staying focused when reading a passage I am asked to read.
I was about to say the same thing, Erika! I just had the same conversation as well. How can one argue something without being completely educated on the topic. I know if there is an argument that I do not know enough about either side, I stay out of it for that reason.
I think GOOGLE is not making us stupid. Google makes us more convenient. At the same time, also witnessed the progress of mankind. I think, Google let us smarter. If we want to know, just search in Google. You’ll know you want to know.
I think everything is changing. Because of technology. Google is a party of technology. I do not know is it good or bad for human. But I know it must be happen. We can do that, good use of high-tech, but do not forget the traditional book or other traditional things. Actually, I like Google.
He used Alan Turing to support his argument. To convince the reader to believe him. At the same time, I also believe that his argument. His argument is strong and persuasive.
The definition of HACK is “Break into computer systems or software” The attempt means the self hacks, self-reflection, reassemble themselves, so that the brain re-operation. I think it needs to attempt anything.
T he definition of HACK is “Break into computer systems or software” The attempt means the self hacks, self-reflection, reassemble themselves, so that the brain re-operation. I think it needs to attempt anything.
We discussed this change is my journalism class as well. How anyone can be a journalist and report on events now with the platform of social media. If you’re at the right place at the right time you can simple pull out your phone, record what’s happening, or send out a tweet instantly and report. No one reads newspapers anymore and small click bait articles are all anyone has time to read. The fact that anyone can do it without any experience or training makes it an “amateur sport” just like the essay
I don’t think it’s a bad thing that there is no pure originality. I don’t find it frustrating because I think it’s amazing that people from so many time periods and different backgrounds have the same thoughts. It’s a nice feeling to know that one is not alone with his/her uncertainties or worries. One of the great things about no originality is that we can share with each other to perfect an innovation or support each other and work off each other’s ideas. Originality is just who gets noticed first.
I think it is very interesting that Graff notes how sports competition has contributed to his intellectualism, but also how it has helped to form “close bonds and community” for him and countless others while school culture has not. School, which is typically seen as the main creator of intellect in students, actually can include less intellectual debate, less formation of close bonds, and less community. I think it is quite unfortunate that school culture has become a fairly messed up system and that many still have yet to acknowledge intellectualism in other areas outside of school.
The first sentence of this paragraph stood out to me. Obviously encouraging students to argue runs the risk of turning into violence, however, suppressing arguments can lead to violence as well. If people’s opinions are repressed and they cannot share, this could cause them to act out and potentially lead to acts of violence. People need to express their ideas and opinions through arguments to help themselves and others to learn more. Thus through hearing other’s statements, they can grow to become more of an intellectual themselves. The example from Graff’s personal life is very interesting and applicable to this statement.
this is one of the many positives with easy access to the internet; however, we cannot always fully rely on what we see and learn on the internet. there are a lot of false facts, and fake news, that can be misleading!
This paragraph can be furthered to emphasize the importance of knowledge that fake news is out there. Through saying, “the mind ‘is very plastic,'” we can know that we can be easily fooled by reading what is on the internet even if it is fake. we may not even know it is fake! this shows the importance in having the tools to find accurate and truthful sources.
This first paragraph made me want to keep reading and see how he did, “get here from there.” Also, I think that him calling himself “one of Satan’s agents” goes deeper than his new identity as a “queer atheist intellectual.”
I think that it is right that, filling up the only quite spaces left,we sacrifice something important in the way that some spaces needs to be empty.
The willingness of saying more than what it is requested is now really easy and common We have many instruments and sources to look for the material that we need. Of course in an old reality this was more difficult and impossible. The sources were less and the people who had access to them were less. Now everyone can ” fill up” these spaces, typing in google everyone can find everything about what it is looking for. and it is true that probably, filling the space with nonsense, will bring the culture to a point that something else , maybe really important and valuable, will be sacrified for something else that has not the same high value.
It is not decided by anyone what means ” the reading in a traditional sense”. In my opinion it is something really personal and it changes from a person to the other one. It is true that the access is easier and also it could be less stressful as a procedure, you just need a laptop but nothing makes it less valuable than the other methods of reading.
All the same books can be find both on paper than in internet and I can only see it as an advantage rather than something that can ruin and make the reading just in order to achieve quick wins. the substrate of the object is exactly the same. there’s just a screen as a difference between the two methods.
This paragraph perfectly captures a critical aspect of our digital age that we often overlook. The obsession with speed and efficiency on the Internet has become the norm, and it’s a model that the biggest tech companies have expertly honed to keep us engaged. It’s a bit like a double-edged sword: on one hand, we benefit from quick access to a vast sea of information. But on the other, this culture of instant gratification has consequences for our thinking patterns and, ultimately, our cognitive abilities.
The point about data collection is particularly eye-opening. The idea that companies are incentivized to collect as many “crumbs of data” as possible makes us question whether our interests align with theirs. It’s like we’re constantly being pushed to do more, consume more, and produce more data. But at what cost to our ability to engage in deep, reflective thinking?
As we delve into a world driven by algorithms, it’s essential to reflect on the impact this has on our inner lives. Are we, as the paragraph suggests, gradually trading the complexities of our inner world for the immediacy of the digital world? How do we find that balance between the benefits of technology and the need for contemplative thinking? These are questions that we, as individuals, and society as a whole, need to address as we navigate the ever-evolving digital landscape.
I find it quite interesting that Warner calls himself one of Satan’s agents. I have never come across a term like this and it, and quite like this way of describing himself.
McLaughlin makes the argument that we overlook the connection between street smarts and book smarts. I completely agree with his argument. I believe that learning new topics/activities/skills etc is fully exploited when we are able to immerse ourselves in it in both a hands on fashion as well as studying it in a text like medium. Learning through sight and being able to apply what we see to something we’ve learned about is crucial to child development.
Last sentence is powerful in terms of being caught in-between his two different lifesstyles
Additionally, I can relate to this because of where I grew up. Lots of times we were put against each other for comparison in the classroom, but at the same time, we were expected to be the best “intellectual” that we could be. At times this caused conflict between the different educational levels of friend groups.
In my opinion, this paragraph embodies the term “self -reliance”. Arguably one of the most important things in becoming successful is to believe in yourself. However, most people are self-conscious in some from that makes it tough for them to do exactly what they want because of the fear of not being accepted. Emerson is right when calls this challenging but he is also right when saying it is the difference between “greatness and meanness”. Many great people have been misunderstood with what they were trying to, or did accomplish; but the ones that made history were the ones that persevered regardless of the critics. In conclusion, Emerson is saying that to be self-reliant, you need to be your own leader and believe in yourself.
I agree with Graff when he says students intellectual abilities get over looked because through all forms of education the school system forces you to take many classes that you don’t want to. this could potential lead to lower grades and not getting into certain programs.
In this paragraph Emerson is saying that when you are alone you have thoughts that go against the norm. These thoughts seem to disappear as you enter society. This is because you become pressured to conform to the thoughts that society as a whole believes in. Society does not like “realities and creators” because this can pose a threat to the current thoughts of society; instead it likes “names and customs.” Society does not like change but favors consistency and following the old customs and ways everything has always been.
In this day and age, I don’t believe it matters to colleges,what other intellectual abilities students possess when looking at a college. My street smarts outweigh my book smarts but that could not be exemplified in the application for Washington College. Although this would definitely have worked to my advantage in my own selection process, I’m not sure there is an efficient way to evaluate these particular abilities in the college acceptance process. If there were, I would certainly be all for it. I know most colleges have essays that are intended to show these non-intellectual abilities but I would like to know how much that REALLY has to do with being accepted. Even if so, is it just one persons opinion? What if that person doesn’t agree with the writers opinion, but another person does?
The last two lines of paragraph really strike me. I think that is one of the best ways to describe technology today. It makes sense since we dont really have to dive in and fully immerse ourselves in information like we used to. Now we can just skim through headlines on twitter that only need to be 140 characters to let us know what is going on. This positives about this can be that now we know more about more things, we just dont know as much about few important things.
In paragraph 12 Maryanne Wolf explains how reading online differs from how we used to read on paper. When she mentions that the style of reading puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” at the forefront it really makes me realize how little information I actually process while reading on twitter and Facebook. I am taking in a TON of information through tweets and posts but I’m not really processing it the same way I would if I were reading a book. Like I mentioned in my previous comment I dont think that I absorb the information but I still can keep a memory of it. I’m not saying thats a good or bad thing but it is definitely something to think about.
In paragraph 79 my eyes are opened to a different way of thinking that somehow throughout this course I have missed the entire time. I feel like I have been focusing this entire time on the difference in technology with the way we read and take in information through different medias and outlets. Somehow I have neglected to think about how severe the difference is when it comes to writing. As I lay here in bed tapping away on my keyboard my thoughts can be written down much much faster than it would take me with a pencil and paper. I dont have to think as deeply since my thoughts can be put down on the screen as soon as I think them, but if I were to be writing on paper I would have to take my time with my thoughts, think them out more thoroughly, and I would probably sound a lot less like I was talking and more like I was writing.
I feel like this accurately represents the essay. The essay is not something that should be forced but something that should come along naturally. It is related to a playful manner that molds the essay itself rather than conforming to a certain form. As you play you are able to do what you want but still complete the objective at hand, this is the same for an essay.
*****Posted on the Wrong paragraph first time*****I feel like this accurately represents the essay. The essay is not something that should be forced but something that should come along naturally. It is related to a playful manner that molds the essay itself rather than conforming to a certain form. As you play you are able to do what you want but still complete the objective at hand, this is the same for an essay.
meant to be on paragraph 44
I think this paragraph is interesting because of the new outlook it gives to hacking. Monson seems to be on some level encouraging hacking because of its creative source – the urge for more information that people have that leads to hacking. He criticizes humanity for our narrow view of the word and all of its negative connotations. He argues that most people do not hack to break the law but to rather gain more information. What is then ironic about this paragraph is that he ends it with stating that “we are not allowed inside” whatever it is we want information about, discrediting his past argument and reminding us that hacking is in fact illegal and for a good reason.C
“Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.” I think that this is a powerful line to end on because it succinctly summarizes Emerson’s entire essay which was about how individuals should be self-reliant on their own thoughts and convictions. This quote emphasizes this by saying that no external factor should comfort you but that one should be reliant on themselves and their own set of principles.
I’ve never heard of argument being dismissed as anti-intellectualism, but I see how that could be construed. I’ve always seen non belligerent argument as a passionate conviction of a deeper understanding. I enjoy the “saturation of life by argument”.
It’s so interesting that intellectualism is usually only measured by book smarts, when the same amount of knowledge can be applied to subjects other than traditional education and be just as valid. Its like a pound of feathers and a pound of bricks metaphor. They weigh the same but the bricks seems heavier.
Has my education made me uniform and useless? I disagree.
Paragraph 13 is a very capturing paragraph to draw the author in and catch their attention. The wording is pleasant to read and sort of rolls off the tongue. I think this paragraph is a strength in the essay because it establishes not only the author’s view of the word “hack,” but the common view of “hacking,” which shows both sides of his argument. The author also includes a lot of imagery in this paragraph. For example, he explains the common view of hacking is a “geeky, eggheaded” person trying to “plant a virus in some high-level Dept of Defense computer.” He is very detailed and specific which puts a strong image into my mind while reading his work. He also compares “hacking” to an “impenetrable tower” and how “we want to know what rests within its walls,” which is very compelling.
This paragraph introduced an important argument in this essay, consistency. Emerson argues that the desire for consistency blocks a person’s ability to become a self-reliant individual. I agree with Emerson’s argument. People often see past views and positions as key factors in defining a current being. For some reason, they have a hard time changing their beliefs and views because they are comfortable with one constant position. They don’t want to contradict their past self. Thanks to the common fear of developing new ideas and views, and venturing into the unknown, people tend to lean away from their own intuition and instinct, essentially preventing their growth into a self-trusting and self-reliant individual. People evolve, people change, people mature. As a person gains knowledge, they should allow explore other opinions in order to grow as an individual. Even though its a new day, people are unwilling to change their past voices. Everyone goes through the process of maturing when they enter into adulthood, so why is it so hard to do this again?
This paragraph introduced an important argument in this essay, consistency. Emerson argues that the desire for consistency blocks a person’s ability to become a self-reliant individual. I agree with Emerson’s argument. People often see past views and positions as key factors in defining a current being. For some reason, they have a hard time changing their beliefs and views because they are comfortable with one constant position. They don’t want to contradict their past self. Thanks to the common fear of developing new ideas and views, and venturing into the unknown, people tend to lean away from their own intuition and instinct, essentially preventing their growth into a self-trusting and self-reliant individual. People evolve, people change, people mature. As a person gains knowledge, they should allow explore other opinions in order to grow as an individual. Even though its a new day, people are unwilling to change their past voices. Everyone goes through the process of maturing when they enter into adulthood, so why is it so hard to do this again?
I accidentally posted my comment to the wrong paragraph. This was meant for paragraph #17.
I can really understand the meaning Graff had when he wrote “clones of academics and intellectuals”. In the original country I used to study in, teachers do whatever they can to insure that we think what they think, do what they do in order to win. Although in China we like to judge a person by one exam only, it can kill almost all kinds of students’ street-smarts, soon their creativity, in the end probably their chance of being success.
Here and the next paragraph the writer used his own example to lead us to his topic. Which I think is not so good, since he is writing to argue with us, and I believed a personal experience can not have such a powerful persuasion. But the idea he is arguing is also hard to find proofs. Maybe after this paragraph of telling us what he is thinking, the next paragraph should give us some solid proofs that actually happen around us.
Here and the next paragraph the writer used his own example to lead us to his topic. Which I think is not so good, since he is writing to argue with us, and I believed a personal experience can not have such a powerful persuasion. But the idea he is arguing is also hard to find proofs. Maybe after this paragraph of telling us what he is thinking, the next paragraph should give us some solid proofs that actually happen around us.
Here and the next paragraph the writer used his own example to lead us to his topic. Which I think is not so good, since he is writing to argue with us, and I believed a personal experience can not have such a powerful persuasion. But the idea he is arguing is also hard to find proofs. Maybe after this paragraph of telling us what he is thinking, the next paragraph should give us some solid proofs that actually happen around us.
Agree. The reading class in my country was teaching us how to use this kind of reading method, not reading through the entire article, but to search the key words. But that’s not because of the media in my case, it was the environment. Reading is basically used in exams and essay writing. During the process this kind of reading has been proved by many Chinese teachers as the most efficient way. The environment shapes our thought through the media which is an expend of our sense according to McLuhan.
So I think he is trying to say that hacking is an act of desiring for unknown things. Which is really interesting because I have dealt with many computer virus planted through many ways from internet and those experience really made me unpleasant. But from this introduction I can guess what he is going to use in order to make contact between Essay and Hacking. Maybe he want to see the unknown part from an essay, he think that the essay should have something in depth. Something new, unknown by us, and are introduced to us through the writer. Or even better, hiding in the essay itself, waiting to be discovered by the reader.
Jocks have long been considered stupid compared to the rest of the student body. But the arguments they have about sports, teams, and players require a lot of knowledge and the ability to effectively argue their point. This experience with argumentative conversations have laid the groundwork for some jocks to become intellectuals later in life when they are less concerned with how being smart makes them look. Moreover, in my high school experience many of the athletes who would be considered jocks were in many of the same honors and AP classes as me.
The author says that it is hard for him to now stay focused on one piece of writing for a long time. This is true for him but other people could use Google and still be able to stay focused on one thing for an extended period of time
Not all reading done online is short reading. For example there are many people who run blogs and their blog posts are usually long and can have the same effect of reading. Also the internet can make the text of books readily available to everyone because you can read books online
I find it particularly interesting that the author would try to be apart of both classes in one way or another rather than just commit to his middle class family. One of the main reasons why this intrigues me is because in the 50s and 60s segregation was very prominent in some areas of the United States. Even though it was segregation of race the fact that the author wanted to engage with both the working and middle class is very nice to see. This paragraph helps me realize that children during this did not care as much about class or race when compared to adults.
Emerson discusses how nothing is original. He compares literature and art to borrowing a body. This analogy he uses it to emphasize that it is almost impossible to have an original idea. The imagery of a person experiencing a sunset, even their thoughts are not their own. He discusses how if an author is quoted he goes and reads the author that the new author quoted instead of the the new piece. Emerson’s philosophy of originality is there is none, which is kind of frustrating.
Why is argument claimed to be only hostile and violent and what can we as a society do to show that argument can lead to intellectual expansion?
It is interesting to hear that the people around Carr and in his life are experiencing the same problems and inhibiting factors
The Web is Carr’s medium, the way he receives and sends information but yet it is inhibiting his abilities to concentrate and contemplate
I actually find this paragraph interesting because I read huckleberry Finn in 9th grade. I remember reading Huckleberry Finn and thinking about how smart and resourceful he was for just a kid even though he was illiterate. This book is a great case of hidden intellectualism that can help school students understand the concept of hidden intellectualism.
This is an interesting concept. The literal interpretation of the bible (fundamentalism), which most consider to reject intellectual ideas actually supports them because you need to be able to form arguments to show why you are right and everyone else is wrong.
I have had similar experiences when reading long texts where I lose focus easily. Because I grew up in the internet age however, it is impossible for me to know whether it is the internet that has poisoned my mind or something else; I will never know. What I do know is that often times i can’t focus simply because I’m tired or some other reason so I’m not ready to sole blame the internet/google.
He’s making it sound like this is a bad thing but I see nothing wrong with having access to more information. Why would it be better to read entire articles when you can get the main points by skimming it and moving on to other stuff.
This paragraph is important because it expresses how people can reach intellectualism through a variety of different avenues. These avenues can differ from person to person based on their interests and talents. We develop certain skills through the things that we are passionate about that can later be applied to other forms of learning or situations.
Here Carr addresses the idea that our mind is changing and that it is a bad thing. I agree that our minds are changing, however I do not fully agree that it is only bad. The things we learn how to do and the knowledge we have adapts over time to what we need to be successful. This means that while we may be unable to function in the same way we once were, it is not because we are stupid, but instead because our brain has gained new knowledge o how to be successful and the skills that are less useful in society have become less prevalent.
When thinking about our inability to read for a long time we must think of the convenience associated with the internet. The internet is a toll that gives us a result almost instantaneously, and instant results are something we as a society have come to expect. In regards to reading, we have a similar expectation. However, novels take a much longer time to provide the reader with the information of the story and long articles can be difficult because the reader wants to find the information and be done.
Graff’s use of Warner in the introduction of his essay is a good example of what we will call “forwarding”: not just quoting another text, but using another’s ideas to extend their thinking into your argument. “His essay invites us to think about students…”
This becomes the basis for Graff’s argument (the problem that he responds to and explores): how schools overlook hidden forms of intellectualism, and how we could change that.
[rethink]
this is the keyword for Graff’s argument–and for many arguments: rethink. Note the complication that makes the argument compelling (pathos): he is rethinking his own way of thinking.
[It is entirely a creation of the culture that holds it dear, a product of the very history it seeks to deny.]
Good rhetorical model here: reiterates the argument’s response (thesis) and restates it in a surprising form that emphasizes the problem: wilderness is a creation of the human culture and history it denies.
[Technology has been causing a shift in the way that people process information and deduce meaning from everything, especially when it comes to literature]
Given.
Problem.
[These technologies are still incredibly young, not yet perfected, and are simply the result of the natural progression of literature. They cannot be and should not be written off before their untapped resources are explored. In fact, the internet–and the hypertext and multimedia literature that has been borne of it–may be opening us to a whole new world of untold possibilities.]
Response.
Play. An instrument to play with unfathomable quantity of textual material. How might we rethink research and brainstorming and reading as ‘playing’?
Tracking terms/keywords: specialization/specialties is used 5 times in this paragraph alone. Definitely on Berry’s mind as a concern.
“Vernacular” is a keyword for Graff, forwarded here from McLaughlin. It relates to his idea of “public argument.” I am also interested in both teaching and my scholarship in thinking about public argument, or a related phrase, “public intellectuals”–their relation to academic intellectuals but also their difference from them. Are there public intellectuals that you read or identify with? Are there places where you engage in public argument? Is that form of argument different from the type of argument that you have learned in the academic world?
Rhetorical knowledge: Graff anticipates a counterargument, an objection that “some” might raise. In presenting his answer provisionally he states his thesis, the “answer” of the argument he will develop: vernacular intelligence is there, but must also be “transformed” and “translated” into the language of academic discourse.
This is a turn to others that is different than what Birkerts does; Carr extends from his anecdotal personal evidence to that of others, including (as we will see in a couple paragraphs) evidence from research.
I would argue there is a crucial difference between information and knowledge. Information is retrieved or received; knowledge is learned, and involves a need to learn. If Google gives me what I already want, I can’t learn from it.
This relates to my comment above on the difference between knowledge and information. And this concerns me deeply about the fundamental assumptions of digital inventions such as Google: that mystery or ambiguity is a human bug to be improved by AI. Frankenstein, anyone?
This definition of hack makes me think of Marshall McLuhan’s idea of a medium as an “extension”; the idea of hack as problem solving also makes me think of an argument or thesis.
This sounds like an older argument for the value of studying Greek and Latin and the traditional liberal arts curriculum: for mental discipline. Emerson says: when nature adds difficulty, she adds brain. Do you agree with Monson that a game, or the FAQ text about a game, can be viewed as intellectual, as an essay, as matter to be studied in schools. Can reading also be a type of playing?
I agree with Julie. Another concept for this idea of reading another’s mind is the rhetorical element of writing we have focused on: recognizing that as writers we are trying to persuade and anticipate (in the case of counterargument) how the reader’s mind will respond. Another word for that comes up later in this essay: we are constrained by the audience in part, and that constraint or limitation enables us to find out what will be effective.
This “transforms” makes me think of forwarding and countering. So, hacking as countering another perspective, reshaping and repurposing an argument.
Essay as repurposed technology for repurposing, solving a problem, exploration.
What essays we have read could we apply this to?
As I will be emphasizing throughout the course, Graff’s phrasing–that the view of things is ‘more complicated and contradictory’ than others or he previously thought–is the heart of any argument or thesis. This is the purpose, in particular, for the arguments we make in the academic world: we value a more complicated understanding of issues and ideas.
I agree with Tatyana that Graff makes a good point here. But this also gets to the more complicated problem that we–and you in your first project–will have to address. Does this imply then that we as readers and scholars can only learn what we already know (since we tend to like only what we know, and dislike what we don’t understand)? Birkerts in Gutenberg Elegies will pick up that concern and assert that our historical awareness has been flattened by technology: we read and think about only what we already know.
Addressing this implication, and this more complicated understanding of our own argument (as well as Graff’s) is the stuff of a strong essay and compelling argument.
This sounds familiar: the nonhuman creation/monster turns out to be more human than the humans that create it.
This paragraph provides a good example of Emerson’s use of metonymy–and how it works differently than metaphor.
Metaphor: the warp and woof of every moment, a metaphorical image of weaving, picked up by “thread” and strands–a metaphor we use all the time–the ‘thread’ of an idea in a book or discussion.
Metonymy: the various actions and materials associate with books and quotation–which he further extends to the acts of invention he discusses, reinforcing the idea that all inventions are quotations of previous machines. In this way Emerson stretches the metonymy (various things associated with the idea of quotation) to the point of metaphor (quoting a chair).
a basic but important analogy at work: thought works like the decomposition of a forest.
this links back to the second paragraph.
“Counteraction” is an idea we could and should apply to Emerson’s own essaying: if the argument is that the individual must always counteract the voices and forces of conformity, then that means Emerson’s own voice and the force of his argument must also be counteracted.
This makes the reader’s position complicated. How should we read this essay self-reliantly?
The complicated, countering force is I think important to the essay as a genre. One rhetorical name for it is counterargument.
Notice how the focus on the self of self-trust begins to be complicated here. The emphasis on the active self from earlier paragraphs here shifts to an “activity” that the self passively receives from elsewhere (called intelligence or aboriginal Self or divine spirit).
“We lie in the lap of immense intelligence, which makes us receivers…”
The beginnings of a counterargument?
Good example of metonymy in this paragraph: attributes of the individual, things associated with the American or the New Zealander, that substitute for a larger context or culture.
Intellectualism is in everything that each person encounters, no matter what the subject may be. People do not realize when they are being intellectual, possibly because they assume that intellect has to be about something formal unlike football for example. As long as one is thinking critically and using the skills to think critically they are being intellectual. Also, by being intellectual, one may view something a way they never had before such as when the author read the adult books about football.
I think that the internet could make us dumber if you let it control you and your daily life. If you are constantly o the internet surfing things without any purpose, then its not beneficial to you. If you use the internet purposefully, then I don’t believe it is making you stupid. It all depends on how you use your time. We cannot slip into the hypnosis of the internet. We have to maintain control over our lives and use it with a meaningful purpose or else it will make us stupid. But I don’t believe that it will definitely happen and has to happen to everyone.
I don’t think that Carr can make an adequate assumption of the Internet based on his own personal experiences. He allowed himself to be a slave to the internet and he cannot generalize its effects because of his own experience. The Internet does not have to be a bad thing if we don’t allow it to be. If we do, then of course it will have a negative effect and it will alter the way our brains function and how we think. People have to maintain self control.
I find this paragraph resinates with many experiences students at my high school dealt with. I went to a boarding school that provided underprivileged kids with opportunities that came as some what of a major culture shock to them. There was a good mixture of both affluent, middle class, and disadvantaged kids at my school, but these sub divisions tended to stick together. Through this, some of the brightest students at our school, tended to be judged upon by who they surrounded themselves with because of a “cultural norm”.
I agree with this idea that reading has evolved into an distant relative to what is once was. We can grasp so much information from just a single headline, so we don’t feel the need to delve deeper. It is possible to have so much information from one 140 character tweet, we receive news mostly like this in todays world, and I feel the larger story is often missed out on.
Thinking for ourselves is a trait humans possess that might make them different from almost any other animal on the planet. Our conscious allows us to process words, speech, and so much more, and the thought that could be taken away is quite frightening.
Holden’s experience during the scene referenced is one familiar to me. I always feel like I lose a part of my personality when I write, that I need to change my words to make myself seem more scholarly.
I dont quite get how Graff thinks students that are street smart cant be beneifcal in the adult world later on in life. Most jobs these days give the opportunity for people graduating from school to use that street smart mindset as another way to get money without a 4 year education taking rigorous courses. To me as of right now, street smart can get you so far and can get you a medicore job. But being book smart and street smart can get you a high paying job title that would be more benefical for the person themself and their company they work for.
Noticing how these results could be directed at my generation especially because we’re the most “tech savvy”, I can see this issue of focusing on reading in-depth articles would be at its peak currently in our society. Because of my generation (specifically the ones in college) having distraction issues when it comes to reading things, it causes a lot of trouble to be able to actually sit down and read an item that maybe might take longer than it would be to skim twitter or facebook, or even a google search page.
I think people nowadays start to believe that we have to start working the way the internet works when we manipulate its system. Using search engines to find satisfaction within simple answer for basic questions, reading articles for a class assignment, thoroughly proofreading someone else’s paper for a grade; these examples are sometimes things that 1- we should already know (within common sense) or 2- activities that need full involvement and attention in order to complete correctly and in a timely manner. Always being around technology and its second nature to us to receive instant gratification and information, this isn’t a productive lifestyle when it comes to our own mental programming. We are all still human whether people think so or not, and it takes time, either way, to retain and process information in order to memorize it and/or present it in front of an audience. Projecting this idea onto the human race is something that could potentially only end badly in a sense when looking through how productive our society can be when our generation gets out into the real world.
In the past, the term intellectualism would be highly frowned upon, for people who dared to not conform to societies standards of normal, were then labelled weird. Today, the term intellectualism still holds some negative connotation, for an individual can still be thought of as different. However, I believe that today it is more common for people to be themselves and be more accepted.
I also agree with Graff that school has been the primary focus and came before other things. However, I think that schools have gotten better in engaging students in learning what they enjoy.
I like Graff’s view in this paragraph . I liked when he brought up Meier’s idea of the clash of ideas makes us all more powerful.I agree that hearing and being presented with different ideas, comments, arguments, is very important and a beneficial thing. Hearing different people’s views can be very informative and present one with different outlooks.
There are a variety of students, some can possess more street smarts and can be less “book smart” and vice versa. Having one or the other is not necessarily a good thing, which the author highlights in his idea of “bilingualism.” This closes the gap between teachers and students and finds “points of convergence and translation,” and combines these two ideas together. However, street smarts isn’t just a language but a series of ideas that cannot be taught through formal education but by pursuing things in the real world. Using these experiences enhances our academic intelligence. Graff highlights this idea by saying teachers shouldn’t dismiss the street smarts of students but use it as an advantage.
I don’t think Google is necessarily making us stupid but it is making us a bit lazier than those who have done research in the past. Even in elementary school, in order to get any information, we had to go to the library and find the information we wanted and manually cite our sources. Nowadays, there are websites that can do these things for you. I would say that we don’t have the same procedure to acquire information, which is really the only notable difference.
This doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone but we are now able to find the exact bit of information that we need and we can move on. There is no point in reading the entire argument if we don’t need it exactly. Not everything that an author mentions is of utmost importance and readers can therefore move on to another text, which he refers to as “skimming.”
It’s interesting what he says about hacking. Basically, it isn’t an illegal activity with the attempt to extract information but rather is the desire for access to information. It is breaking the law but he says that people don’t hack into computer systems for the purpose of breaking the law but to see information that is deemed not fit for our viewing.
Graff writes, “His essay invites us to think about students’ intellectual abilities that go overlooked by schools because they come in unlikely packages. There must be many buried or hidden forms of intellectualism that do not get channeled into academic work but might if schools were more alert about tapping into them.” This is an important and prominent issue that exists in education systems because oftentimes classes are structured in a certain way that doesn’t necessary allow for individuals to show their understanding. This also introduces the need for people to understand and be more aware that individuals have different ways of reasoning and understanding ideas, but all ways are accepted. To me this is a powerful quote as it addresses the need for acceptance and it introduces how intellect is present and seen in many different forms.
The argument that is being conveyed in paragraph 10 suggests that society, specifically school systems, value intellect in typical school subject which include biology, chemistry, english, etc. Schools seem to disregard or not value intellect and success in topics like sports, fashion, religion, etc. This paragraph furthers the argument that only certain forms of intellect are praised and nurtured. Despite the many forms and varieties of intellect and understanding, students continue to be required to take certain classes. Should students only take classes that they will succeed at, or should they be exposed to all topics/subjects? In my opinion, I think it is beneficial to take and learn about many subjects as it does help individuals find their interests, but people as a whole need to understand that we are not supposed to be masters/experts at everything we do. There are going to be certain things that we excel at and certain things we struggle with and this again related back to the varying forms of intellect.
When explaining the story of his adolescne and his discovery of his intellectualism, Graff writes “…my preference for sports over schoolwork was not anti-intellectualism so much as intellectualism by other means.” This is an extremely powerful quote and is a main point Graff continuously makes. He realized that interest and understanding in things like sports compared to academics doesn’t necessarily mean that you are an anti-intellect. Intellect can not be measure by the same criteria when comparing different subjects.
In the beginning of this article, I had no intention of being convinced that google is in fact making us stupid. However, Carr uses persuasive language and his perspective on technology makes his argument very convincing. Carr uses emotional appeal and introduces several counterarguments that eventually are used to strengthen his overall argument. Carr is extremely convincing as he demonstrates his owen credibility. By this I mean that Carr admits to his internet usage and shows how he has benefited from it and essentially shows the reader that he is just like them and suffers from the over usage of the internet as well. Overall, Carr’s structure and organization of his article is well done and is extremely persuasive/influential.
It is important to note how Carr specifically structure the beginning of his article. He wrote his introduction with the audience in mind. He beings by referencing a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey where the brain of an artificial intelligent pilot is unplugged. This introduces the novel well and it also serves as an introductory to his personal anecdote in the second paragraph. Overall, the set up of Carr’s introduction is effectively organized and it engages the reader.
Upon reading this paragraph, I agree completely with what he is saying. Deeper reading requires more concentration while using the internet provides results in seconds with not much thought. We are changing much like our change with technology.
This paragraph is one of the most persuasive. He argues that the more and more we use the internet, the more our thinking changes. We become more and more like these “high-speed data-processing machines”. As we click link to link, we feed more and more into this claim. Google, a search engine we all know and use, feeds off of our use, then forming to fit our ways and needs. When they feed us what we want, we keep coming back. Our deeper reading has been interrupted by distraction. Instead of slow and concentrated which is less, quick and distracted is more.
The way we are able to make adaptations is one of the most amazing qualities about human beings. Reading is not etched into our genes which makes us able to change and bend to more and more new changes.
I can relate to the points that Graff is making in this paragraph 16 about furling the inability to read in a conventional sense. I too found that comprehension in the “intellectual” format almost impossible at some points. while others took pleasure from assigned books I usually cringed about the test there after.
Did Warner’s upbringing make him want to stray far from his parent’s beliefs? Sometimes when values are pushed on us as a kid, we either conform or stray away from them. Warner most likely had the beliefs he does as an adult, while he was a child. I wonder what his relationship is like with his parents today.
I am a Christian, so I believe in God. I believe that God loves everyone no matter their sexuality, race, or gender. I believe that God knows the future, for he’s written it. However, I know that times have changed. No one, especially God, expects things to be the same as they were millions of years ago. The Bible should be looked at as a mere interpretation, and not something to be taken straightforward. Change is a good thing. We all find our true selves over time.
After watching the movie “Social Network,” I realized I would not want to be anything like Mark Zuckerburg. He has all the smarts and money, but he lacks in street smarts. Street smarts and creative thinking are viable in one’s personality. Someone can be extremely smart, like Zuckerburg, yet have no one to share their wealth with.
This actually brings up something that I just talked about in my Communications and Medias class. If you don’t know anything about something that you don’t like, how can you possibly argue your point of why you don’t like it. If you learn everything about a topic then it is easier to make educated opinions about it and argue why you don’t agree.
I find the author’s disagreement with Meier’s statement quite intriguing. Although Meier may be speaking for herself, Graff challenges her idea in that school may silence students in small and unconscious ways, but he argues that school was never that powerful. That school didn’t have that much power over every student, but that schooling created a lasting impression among everyone who was once educated. I find it interesting that Graff thinks that school prevented him from recognizing his own intellectualism because I think everyone has their own way of presenting intellectualism. I agree that the education system can both hinder and hide your own discovery. I felt that this statement can be extremely relatable to those who may find their intellectualism in areas completely outside of a school environment and it’s subjects.
I find it interesting that this opinion is even coming into discussion. Would we really be better off if our brains were replaced by artificial intelligence? How would we go about the way we learned going forward? Would this just put everyone on an equal playing field, for lack of better words? I understand the metaphor that is used in that our brains are an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive, but why does it have to be improved through artificial intelligence? Why even suggest this?
This is something that I feel we can all relate to. The internet, and essentially technologies, have made us read less and less important pieces of work. It is difficult for us to read books and articles whether that be online or paper copies. We have become a society so obsessed with technology and the fast pace of the web. We truly are seeking convenience in that we have become lazy and heavily reliable on the internet and the work that it can do for us.
I agree how intellectuals were despised in that period based on an improvement. Now the majority of people who are intelligent are also athletes. Today, no one is really despised because they’re intelligent.
I agree with Carr here because technology give us instant satisfaction. When we read we have to dig and get lost to reach that satisfaction. Now we are surrounded by technology which is changing us. When most people read they can not wait for the satisfaction and get bored. This leads them to close the book or they try to get through the assigned pages as quickly as possible.
I agree with Carr and his friends because I too struggle with reading. I have spent more time using the web for reading then reading an actual book. When I do read a book I lose interest fast, unless I enjoy the subject which is sports. I’m not reading a lot of sports books in class so the books that are assigned I don’t enjoy as much.
The phrase”intellectualism by other means” is a statement that most people can relate to. While we are taught being studious means being smart, in order to be a well-rounded intellectual one must explore all aspects of the society we live in. Although an interest in sports, cooking, studying, etc. all differ because of they’re substance, all spark interest in one person or another. This spark of interest is the reason so many people are passionate about so many subjects. It is necessary to understand the necessity of literature and history and math in human culture in order to expand our horizons; however, it is not necessary to have interest in these topics as a means to be considered an intellect.
I feel like students in today’s society can really relate to this predicament that the author has found himself in. The attention span of today’s generation is diminishing and Carr is arguing that technology is the culprit. What used to be considered the norm has now become a struggle. I think his argument in this paragraph is relatable; however, this may not be the case for all readers.
I think people who use Google, which is almost everybody today, are becoming used to this instantaneous arrival of information. When someone has a question they almost immediately turn to Google, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing; however, this sort of “research” only answers the basic what and not the how or the why. Rather than actually obtain knowledge and learning people are now simply memorizing facts. The metaphor Carr uses in the last section of the paragraph really allow the reader to visualize the difference in how we used to obtain knowledge and how we find it now.
The schools systems of our nations society had and still have been stuck on the notion that education is not flexible. And by that I mean the administrators and instructors that construct the courses for the average student in the United States stick to the bare minimum of creativity and stay to the norm that has been around for ages. Instead of having a few courses that teach common knowledge such as street smarts or how to pay your taxes for instance, they create other classes to fill those spaces. Some necessary or beneficial skills that people have been learning on the run could be set in place by our school systems at a very young age.
I found this line that reading is not as an instinctive skill as contradictory because it is without a doubt arguable in both ways. He is almost trying to get the reader to become questioned and then argumentative.
He makes a valid point on the concept of the human brain. It is almost complex beyond measure and in that he is able to go off of its function and how its downfall is slowly occurring in his eyes through these search engines and easy access mechanics of online.
The re-programmation of our brains in a sense is kind of scary to a point in the way that it is almost out of our hands. We are beginning to rely too much on the Net and from this we become dependent and disabled. The search engine of google is almost becoming a crutch and one injury that we may never heal from unless we give it up all together which is not a possible alternative.
In this paragraph it is interesting how the author clearly admits the obvious direction that writing is moving towards in our culture today. It is truly how most writers got their fame years ago but now today as the writer says, “It is becoming an amateur sport”. By this Monson is implying that anyone who has access to a computer and the internet is basically in this inter webbed competition to become known as a great writer in our society today. Just by posting your writings onto various blogs online you can become known and famous, which in my opinion is an amazing aspect of how our generation is in many ways of life today.
The possibility of engaging in extremely complex discussions related to sports, as Graff recalls here, reminds me of my motherland, Argentina. Back in my home country, many nonacademic (and sometimes poorly educated) people can spend hours and hours arguing about soccer (although we hate that name, and prefer to call it football). Many a time, what was in the beginning a meaningless and mundane conversation about this sport can escalate almost immediately and become a serious, although heated, debate.
People who never heard of Cicero or Quintilian, just to persuade the others of their team’s importance or superiority, might resort to rhetorical devices only thought to be known by academia. Maybe, some fans may make use of hyperbolic statements to strengthen their arguments, as when they say (and I’ve heard this frequently) that their team is the best because they won that one arduous and tediously unending Cup X back in the 1920s, a difficult time for football since the sport was still amateur and exceptionally dangerous, because… and it can just go on and on. It is not uncommon either to hear someone say that some player of their team, especially one that is having a good season, is God; not a god, but the Christian Lord. And, although that could be considered a hyperbolic statement too, it is also (and particularly) a metaphor (and a really irreverent one, for that matter). And metaphors, lest we forget, are common tools used everywhere to speak rhetorically; that is, at least in this case, to speak compellingly.
And football fans in Argentina say this kind of things for a reason: they want to persuade their audience. They might not know it, and their topic might be one that intellectuals despise, but, when fans discuss the latest match at the local bar (a fairly typical picture from the Argentinian landscape), they’re applying the ancient art of rhetoric. It really all comes down to arguing and trying to win the argument. You have football fans from certain team doing their best to convince football fans from other teams that the latter aren’t as good as the former, and in order to do that… well, you have to know how to argue properly, how to express yourself in a persuasive manner, how to make a case for your team, how to make the others think that your arguments are irrefutable. And all this, I think, is one expression (out of many) of the hidden intellectualism Graff is talking about in his essay.
At long last, Carr seems to acknowledge that some (if not all) of his views and opinions regarding the internet might not be Revealed Truth after all.
He admits some of his flaws before his critics (myself included) can counter his arguments. But that’s not enough to “redeem” him.
Carr’s view is so biased; he’s such a fearmonger and a bigot; his whole argument is so fallacious… It’s hard not to give him credit when it’s due.
He’s certainly right when he states that one cannot compare the way the alphabet changed the human mind with the way the internet is changing it right now. That’d be a faulty comparison, and Carr’s article has enough fallacies already.
However, when he should’ve been more concrete and firmer in his reasoning, he starts to give us some New Age pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo when he mentions “the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds.” What’s that supposed to mean? As a reader, I was waiting for some substantial evidence, but Carr has only this to offer.
He also doesn’t explain why we can’t “deep read” on the internet.
Here, Carr provides us the substantial evidence we were asking. No one can dispute that “the human brain is almost infinitely malleable,” although one should be suspicious of that treacherous adverb.
So the brain “is very plastic,” okay. So “the brain has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions,” okay. I believe all this to be true. I do not deny these almost self-evident claims.
However, this whole paragraph begs the question of the utmost importance, one that every researcher, scholar, academic writer, you name it, must bear in mind while writing: So what?
The brain changes over the years; people change over the years. This has been demonstrated; this is a scientific fact; this is the truth. And your point is…?
Carr, right here, is appealing to tradition. This is a very well-known fallacy, the argumentum ad antiquitatem. Of course, I don’t know if he’s being dishonest to push forward some conservative and traditionalist agenda or if he’s just bad at crafting arguments that make logical sense.
The Internet is changing the ways we think and communicate and read and socialize and work; everyone knows that. Carr’s not telling us anything new; much to his chagrin, he arrived late to the party.
So Carr seems to argue here that, since the internet is changing our minds, we should hence avoid it as much as possible, or at least keep our distance.
But he doesn’t explain why this change is in any way, shape, or form bad at all. Carr appears to fear change for change’s sake. He won’t have any of it, just because he doesn’t want to let go of his old-fashioned ways.
Once again, Carr forwards scientific facts and solid arguments and evidence only to end up saying, over and over again: change is dangerous; change is dangerous; change is dangerous.
And, of course, he’ll never tell you why it’s terrible to let the internet remodel our brains (even ever so slightly).
I come from a French high school and the way they teach there is very different. You don’t know how lucky you are for being able to choose the classes you want in American high schools. We don’t have this kind of opportunities. Meaning we’re stuck with 10 to 11 classes for three years and even if we’re really struggling and we hate some of them, there is no way they will ever let you change or drop one. Without mentionning that most of the time our teachers focus on the good students leaving behind those who are struggling. Because of that students are never motivated since they don’t have any interests in the subject, you just learn by heart what the teacher says without understanding any of the contents. This paragraph describes it perfectly, the student sees the class as ” a series of contextless facts that one crammed the night before the test and then forgot as quickly as possible afterward”. Also, about sports and extracurricular activities, we almost never have time for that since classes start at 8:00am and end at 5:30pm every day. We even have classes on Saturday mornings which is crazy and I think everyone will agree with me about that. My point is they don’t give us the opportunity to flourish in what we really like in addition of not helping us figure out what we’re good at and this is kind of anti-intellectual.
The author may have a point here I won’t deny that, we are obviously influenced by the fact that we tend to overuse the internet and google but in some way we can’t blame it all on the internet because we have to take responsibility and start setting up some boundaries for ourselves. I think that all of what it surrounding us affects they way we act and therefore the way we read, everything is changing and everything is evolving sometimes its for the better and sometimes its not. Our environment is the most important thing when it regards how we evolve.
“our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts” Nietzsche said and I could not agree more, I personally write better using electronic devices such as a computer than using anpaper and a pen but I can not read a book electronically, I think, at least for me that the charms of reading lies on the printed pages, on the fact that you can feel the pages flowing through your fingers and not just passing them by on a digital screen.
While I can fid myself having a similar experience to author, this doesn’t help setter scene of the argument. This argument jumps to the conclusion that the internet, specifically Google, as the source of our lack of attention and concentration. While our fast-paced internet may cause a lack of concentration, but there is no addressing other factors or personal factors.
I completely understand this argument and the concept of skimming rather than taking a “dive” into things, however I think this argument falls a little short with the reasoning. There is no real reasoning of why this is occurring, so the shortcoming of the argument is that this thought process is changing solely from digital media. There should be some type of description of how and why the loss of concentration is occurring beyond skimming.
I think this contradicts with the idea of being “stupid”. Browsing is a quicker and more efficient process then reading every word when there is a general idea to be understood. I believe this is just falls more into a category of working smarter and not harder. In addition, the length of this text contradicts the concentration aspect the author addresses. Why make a text this long if people and the author himself are claiming they can’t concentrate when reading longer text?
In this paragraph, Graff develops a very interesting concept of finding “middle-ground”. Graff develops this idea that there can be a translation between a students street smarts and academic discourse so that students are not confined to a version of what intellectualism should be. Rather, teachers can find points of translation and capitalize off of raw intellectualism that a student has, into the “typical” intellectualism that is expected in the education system. This concept is empowering in today’s education system as so many students are being confined to what intellectualism is through written tests and scores on assignments. I interpret Graff’s take on this topic as every student having intellectualism that can be developed to what society needs.
I agree with the fact that schools do not tap into individual’s intellectual abilities. In New York schools, we all have to do the same work that is mandated by the state and teachers have to follow it exactly. This form of teacher does not allow students to both learn at their level and express their own forms of intellectual knowledge.
I agree with the statement that school doesn’t channel intellectualism. School gives you the basic information that you need to get the basics, but you have to dig deep and put the extra time in to actually channel your own intellectualism.
Growing up in this generation and going through all of my years in school, I’ve definitely noticed a decline in peoples willingness to engage in arguments. In class, people are much less likely to argue or challenge the teacher’s or another students perspective on something (and don’t get me wrong, I am guilty of this). I’m not sure if this is a lack of care for thinking deeply about things, or if people are scared to be shut down, but it’s definitely not a lack of ability or capacity to argue and think critically. Like the article said, “students themselves may not recognize the academic potential of their argumentative talents”. Without consistent debates around challenging topics, students can and will sit in a place of ignorance of their own intellectual abilities. Additionally, I think it be worthwhile to consider the way people argue nowadays. It’s commonly, “I’m right and your wrong”, and that’s the end of it. We need to be more conscious of our word choice in these debates with people, to not use diction that slanders the other person, but is solely about combatting the opposing argument. Many people these days can take things so personally (including myself). I’m in FULL agreement that it sucks getting shut down in an argument, but it should not be a personal attack, and we need to remind ourselves of that. I also definitely agree with some of these other comments that arguing has developed a negative stigma around it- that if you argue, you are rebellious, disrespectful, etc. but this can absolutely be changed. I think a good start would be more teachers challenging students’ intellectual abilities, calling them out in class about their stance on a certain topic, and guiding the conversations in positive ways by encouraging speech that upholds the argument without attacking the other person’s stance in a negative way.
In this particular moment, Monson makes it obvious that he’s exploring within this essay. The statement “Let me take another shot at it” makes explicit how the essay, using examples, fleshes out attempts to understand a topic. Using the statement as a transition, he forces the reader to become aware of the logical movements of his essay, and thus exposes elements of the essay such as examples to support a claim.
Perhaps because of his awareness of text’s limitations, Monson tends to use forms which break free from the typical essay. In this essay, he works within an essay’s boundaries, though he pushes them with his lyric language (see the first 11 paragraphs) and explicit commentary (see my precious comment); however, Monson uses electronic writing that grows and networks ideas outside the limitation of a printed or singular essay.
“in a large sense, one would say there is no pure originality. All minds quote.”
This is a frustrating statement because of its paradoxical truth. On one hand, to think we need fodder: other sources. On the other hand, scholars want to have original ideas. For example, I wrote a section of my thesis (defining landscape as verb) thinking I was integrating and creating, but then I got a new source which claimed that its goal was defining landscape as a verb. This claim was the first sentence of the book. As such, I was not contributing anything new, but I wasn’t aware of it until I read that sentence! It’s nice to have allies in thought; it’s also frustrating to the creative (or seemingly creative) mind. I sense this puts into tension Emerson’s idea from a previous essay that creativity is the purest thought. How can we creatively recycle ideas?
Being quoted means our thoughts connect with others’ and, in turn, this connection gives our thoughts authority?
I think this is the most comprehensive of Emerson’s essays if only because its rhetoric is more argumentative than contemplative.
The relationship between a teacher and student is very important as I feel both need to understand one another.The best teachers in my experience are the one who you can have a conversation with and talk about the course.
I agree with the idea that you do not need to be book smart in order to be an intellectual. Having these “streets smarts” are almost as much or more important in the real world than knowing about history of the world. Also, I believe that being book smart is not just being smart, it is a form of repetition that anyone can learn if they study enough. Being intellectually street smart has more value.
I found it interesting that Warner is questioning some aspects of his faith, especially when it comes to the Old Testament and how God only acted in stories. Warner comes to the conclusion that life is a mystery and not even God knows his own fate.
In paragraph five he discussed how technology has affected his literature. I believe that technology has been slowly replacing the styles of literature. As for a student, technology has affected my work with literature as well. The internet does not contribute to our education.
The internet can have some advantages as well. Every thing you do on the internet involves literature. For use, your computer requires reading and typing. The internet evolves reading, which helps your mind.
I like how he refers to other authors such as Alan Turing in paragraph twenty. It helps persuade the reader and alerts his readers with showing them he has done his research.
In paragraph 14 the author explains to the reader that a hack is a shortcut a sort of quicker way to access something. Hacks are used in everyday life, people find quicker ways to get jobs done. I also enjoy how the author refers to different types of hacking, a couple examples would be video games, computers, and etc.
Emerson argues here, the importance of thinking for yourself and not just relying on the thoughts of other people. People will read works by people with a well known name or people with merit and will then push their own thoughts on the topic to the side. If people continue to diminish their own opinions and creativity society will not be able to progress or experience positive change. Emerson’s last line in the text really stood out to me. I think it is often that people will come up with great ideas but they do not give themselves credit for it being something worth sharing. But when people do this they must accept it when other people share the exact same idea and receive credit and praise for it.
I Would agree with McLaughlin’s argment that we tend to ignore the fact that street smarts and book smarts are present in our everyday lives. People just tend to push away street smarts from book smarts as they find street smarts as inferior to book smarts as it may not sound as sophisticated as the diction used in book smart language.
I believe this to be very true because as we can see there is an outline that we as a culture have created for a means of measuring “intelligence”. Though schooling now does test certain aspects of ones skill set that could render them intelligent but I believe school itself leaves a huge margin of unrecognized critical thinking. Not even to mention the fact that every single person learns differently, to teach and test a classroom full of students in the same redundant fashion, only a handful of those students will retain and grow to their full potential.
Emerson uses the allusion of the story of Romulus and Remus, and old roman story of how Rome was founded. They were both suckled by the She-wolf, a symbol for mothering and nurturing aspects. He makes many comparisons to animals and where they draw their expertise from. He also presents this in a poetic fashion in short powerful lines that require more thinking and decoding of what Emerson actually means.
Thanks for any other informative website. The place else may I am getting
that kind of information written in such an ideal way?
I have a undertaking that I am just now operating on, and I have been at
the glance out for such information.
According to Learning Disabilities Association of America 2.4 million students are diagnosed with specific learning disabilities. In Graff’s article he alludes to this idea that there are many students whose “intellectual abilities go overlooked by schools because they come in unlikely packages.” I think this is very true when it comes to gifted students with learning disabilities. Many students feel overlooked and unheard. This happens because many faculty dismiss the intellectual capabilities of students with disabilities. In other words, they focus on the weakness rather then the strength, and the disability rather than the ability. He goes on to say that “there must be many buried or hidden forms of intellectualism that do not get channeled into academic work but might if schools were more alert about tapping into them.” If teachers were trained in working with gifted students with learning disabilities this wouldn’t be the case anymore. Students would be encouraged to take classes that would truly challenge them rather then just placing them in the “lower class”.
I resonated with this idea that “the result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.” For in today’s society everything is about speed. Time is important and has become more and more valuable. It is way too often you see people scrolling from tab to tab glancing over material that was once throughly read and analyzed. Topics that were once researched for years and decades can now be brought up on a google search in the mater of seconds.
I meant to comment this in this paragraph but by accidentally commented it on a different paragraph.
Carr’s article brings up many note worry and thought provoking ideas. I resonated with his idea that, “[His] mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument and id spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do.” For in today’s society everything is about speed. Time is important and has become more and more valuable. It is way too often you see people scrolling from tab to tab glancing over material that was once throughly read and analyzed. Topics that were once researched for years and decades can now be brought up on a google search in the mater of seconds.
Disregard the top comment this is the one i meant to post here.
I also find it interesting that Carr brings up this idea that, “A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration,” For with the invention of computers, the internet, and google people are always accessible and its becoming harder and harder to unplug and disconnect. If you’re sitting in mass, at your child’s play, or even mourning a loss at a funeral you can be contacted within a split second and there is this notion that you are expected to always be ready to respond.
The idea of connecting the “bridge” of street-smarts to be more academic intellectual is what I think to be a contemporary discussion or even argument / debate of today’s world.
Writing and how you speak on social media is different from how someone writes an email to a professor, writes an essay, journalism, or even just how they speak out loud. But it is all writing and conveying a message. People in today’s world can often be on social media for long periods of time every day, so that is the kind of writing they are used to. This in my mind is the “bridge” many people are trying to build and decrease the gap between different age groups, social groups, and in different ways of writing in general.
I think that skimming is a relatable example of how our reading skills have changed with the environment in which we now read. As stated previously, we no longer feel that we can take the time to actually sit down and read. Plus we get distracted much more easily, so scanning seems to be the resolve as we can still get the main points of the reading.
I think it is really interesting here that Carr describes online reading as a “different kind of reading” because it definitely is. But does it make us less studious or less capable of understanding the reading? I do not think so, I believe if someone is committed to a project they will for sure go back to a text and read over it again because there is always something else to be gained from a reading when read over again. Even if not returned to, there is something to be said for taking notes while reading, and quoting a text to reference back to. The point of the printing press is interesting and I agree, when it was more common place technology of reading form the printed page, reading would have been different.
I believe that children are heavily influenced by their families. For example, politics will a lot of the time be passed down from parents to children. Sometimes, children will have different beliefs when they are exposed to the real world, but when stuck at home and influenced by people, parents have a huge impact on their children’s future views.
I don’t really see the whole “intellectuals were despised” thing, but there was certainly a shift in intellectualism in post WWII America. Education became cheaper and it was being opened to more people, including African Americans and women. Once good education is out among the common people, it makes sense that someone with more intellectual skills will be payed more than someone who is less skilled.
If he’s able to watch Kubrick’s 2001: Space Odyssey, I dont think he has issues with a wandering/drifting attention. Lots of people lose interest in that movie because it “drags on” for long periods with “nothing” happening.
Is this really a problem though? Is it a problem that people aren’t reading everything. As I see it, as long as a message or information is conveyed accurately, the way it is done does not matter. Not all people need to read pages upon pages of information on one thing to get the idea. Just because some people breeze through articles does not mean all do, and I don’t see why it is a problem. I am not obligated in any form to finish reading something that I have started or read it completely.
Emerson likens religion to a bundle of sticks, slowly gathered through many ages, picking and choosing from the multitude of sticks, rejecting the bad sticks and saving the good ones. He cites the Bible specifically of having being meddled with over many years and by many people. It is hard to find a work that is contributed to by just one person, in their own lifetime. It can be argued that those already dead can contribute ideas because something they contributed to while living can influence those who are making something now.
Nature has given a lot of power to babies. They have not yet been tainted by the world, technology, or knowledge. Nature has given them the ability to easily capture the attention and minds of adults. Each age has its own benefits, ranging between youth and knowledge or experience. The baby controls the adult because it demands attention but the adult yields control over the pubescent.
I think it’s interesting for him to say that he had trouble seeing his teachers as role models. This author looked up to his favorite sports stars or singers, never his teachers. I think kids today have a hard time still relating to teachers because they forget just how human they are along with how human their favorite celebrities may be. Kids put these people on pedestals and don’t realize how fragile they can be along with the rest of us. If teachers were able to reach kids on a personal level, the way the author’s seventh grade teacher did, then they may be able to feel comfortable enough to reach out to their teachers. The more comfortable a student feels to express their opinion the sooner their “hidden” academic intellect will be revealed.
Sometimes technology can be incredibly useful, as described in this paragraph. It is much easier to write and to share ideas. It is also much easier to do research.
This paragraph scares me because I can relate so closely. I have gone from reading books to reading what’s called fan fiction. I fear i’ve become impatient and unable to focus on long books so I choose to read fan fiction instead where I can more predictably guess what happens.
This scene, so incredibly poignant in Kubrick’s film, has haunted me on a level for years. To see its mention followed promptly by something that frankly seems initially quite negative felt like a low blow, frankly not worthy of the material being referenced. This is of course a needlessly personal account on my part, but to so rapidly compare the changes in one’s mind to something beyond a person’s control is flawed. Come paragraph six, Carr states that he “[has] been spending a lot of time online,” and blames this for his shift mentally. This is hardly in keeping with it being beyond his control, as he is the one to initiate any shift brought on by exposure to online experiences.
Once again, we delve into the personal when making an argument, with Carr telling how he cannot read electronically with the same joy as reading a printed book. While he is entitled to this predilection, I myself must argue otherwise, having seen some of my favorite literary moments come from both forms of reading. While medium is a powerful tool, as we learned from McLuhan, it is not so encompassing to me that I will let it detract in any way from what I experience.
I can definitely relate to the message that is being given in this paragraph in that the way that people act in school and in sports are mutually exclusive. Throughout my life so far, I have noticed that people act differently in cultures that they are not as comfortable in. While both the jock and academic culture have similar structures, people feel different going from culture to culture because everyone is unique and people rarely have a perfect balance between athletics and academics.
I find this idea to be very unsettling because it seems to be taking away the part of the human brain that makes it so special. By referring to the human brain as “an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive”, it makes humans out to be machines that are all the same when in fact everyone is different and unique in there own way. The human brain is much more complex than a mass-produced machine.
I agree with this point that is made here because it shows the real difference the human brain and a computer. The human brain has capacities that we are not even sure how far they go. A computer is pre-programmed and can only do things that are within its programming. The human brain “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions”. Ultimately, the human brain is more complex.
The opening paragraph was one that interested me because it was a topic that I am getting used to seeing more and more now a days. The theme of being a religious kid that went completely against convention is something that has come to light more and more recently.
I completely relate to what was said in this paragraph. I too am experiencing a difficulty in concentrating on the text and it is becoming harder and harder for me to engage in the “deep reading” as Carr described. The deep reading is almost foreign to me, the idea of it only coming through memory of the experience because it has been a very long time since I have been able to concentrate enough to go deeper into text.
Carr once again makes a very good point that I can relate to. I attribute my loss in ability to concentrate to the ever increasing exposure to technology. Technology itself is not the problem however but how much that con be done with it that is distracting. For a book, you can only sit down and read, yet with a computer for example here is almost an infinite amount of possibilities that ca all be accessed through the click of a button.
So often in classroom settings, I feel as if students are not understood. The problem I believe is that students do not know how to present their interest, or articulate a sound argument. In many cases an “argument” in by no means hostile, yet the instructor commonly strikes down such behavior. So much of learning stems from asking questions, probing a topic, or challenging a claim. Open classroom discussions are ideal environments for expanding knowledge and understanding.
Our brains are constantly adapting to our bodies surroundings. We inherently train our nueral processies to be as efficient as possible, and technology is the tangable product of that instinctive adaptation.
We are connected more than ever, but how does that change interpersonal relationships?
Social media, news outlets, advertising, famous athletes, moviestars, ect.
These all influence our behavior more than ever
I agree with what Monson has to say about this. The essay–in many cases–is a stream of consciousness. However, I believe that other forms of writing can do the same thing that an essay can do–for me it’s all in the writing style. Writing style is more important and prevalent than genre for me, at least if you’re trying to keep people entertained or enthralled in your work.
Here the author is imploring rhetorical questions to further his thinking and analysis. He is able to use the questions to express his frustration and dissatisfaction with how to use other’s works in his own writing. He seems to think that using what other’s have had to say on a topic will further one’s paper but only to the extent that it is not to say that you just agree with the quote.
Also, in this essay the reader is not addressed as much as the other essays that we have read. In fact, the reader is almost neglected.
In this Emerson is urging his readers to write whatever is in their mind not matter how simple it might seem. He says that some of the best material comes from thoughts that are spontaneous and fleeting. He wants readers to write anything no matter how silly it might seem because it is better to have written it than to read someone else’s writing on the topic. He urges the reader to have their own opinion and not be afraid to speak (write) their mind.
I think that this is an interesting argument that schools should take into consideration. Students that don’t enjoy a subject but are forced to learn it are not going to retain that knowledge in the future. Every person isn’t “book smart”, and schools should recognize that. I think a good way that schools can help these students is by offering a wider variety of classes and allowing students to bring their own interests and experiences into the classroom.
I can relate to the argument that they are making here. Although I have never been a big reader, I find it difficult to read long texts. Reading short articles online allow me to focus more on the content. Like he says in this paragraph, I do a lot of skimming on larger texts.
The internet and google have more influence now than ever before. An entire generation of people have now grown up with these tools available to them. Whether it is a positive or a negative can be debated. People are able to find information quickly and connect to people around the world, but are they losing their ability to learn and read efficiently?
It is very interesting that in Warner’s experience with reading that a religious topic caused such a revelation and made him question his faith in God and is religious belief.
I think that if schools could somehow allow students to explore the more typical writings as well as the things that are of interest to them there would be a better chance of students being more enthusiastic about reading.
The author brings forth his life experiences with technology to in a way connect to his first example with the connection to a movie. It sets up his argument that technology is changing things for literature and literacy. This seems to be an effective way to begin because right away the reader can connect.
Just as McLuhan discusses the internet and technologyas a medium so does this author. He brings forth McLuhn’s argument that the internet sculpts the readers thoughts by way of filtering what it shows you.
I can appreciate his initial sentiments on the essay. I think that just about everyone that went through public schools once felt this way about essays and large writing projects. We don’t necessarily have problems with them but we are not sure how to start on them. This is very similar to what we were working on early in the semester: experiences with essays, most of which turned out to negative.
I really like McLaughlin’s argument on how schools disregard” Street Smart” as they believed that it is not a form of academic intelligent, thus it overlook
96
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
I like the fact that Monson gives an explanation of the term hacking. At the end of this paragraph he states that hackers, hack because they simply want access. Hackers know that there are systems they don’t understand at the surface. In order to understand it, they hack it then gain access. I think this a good way to describe how people feel about essays. Personally when I was in high school essays weren’t my strong point. I felt as though I could do better, but for some reason couldn’t figure out how. Writing good essays was the system I didn’t quite understand and in order to I had to “hack” into the system and gain access. When I was able to “hack” into the system and gain insight on things about essays I didn’t know before, my writing improved
In paragraph five Emerson claims that “the originals are not original”, implying that there is no new creativity in in the world just remakes of previous ideas, views, etc. Yet in paragraph seven Emerson says that “every talker helps a story” and by the end there is a good story constructed. This makes it seem as though Emerson thinks people are capable of making up stories, which requires some sense of creativity and/or originality. I feel as though there is somewhat of a contradiction between this paragraph and paragraph five. Or maybe Emerson is saying that creativity isn’t needed because of the lack of originality , but that wasn’t my first thought when I first read this paragraph.
The medium we choose to write in definitely impacts our work. This is a beautiful example of that. I could not agree more with Nietzsche on this. What this example illustrates in the fact that the new technology (in this case the typewriter) facilitated the writing of arguably one of the greatest minds on the planet and allowed posterity to enjoy certain texts that we wouldn’t have otherwise.
Yes, the introduction of this new medium had an impact but the question remains, was that impact necessarily a bad thing? And even if it was, is the alternative really better?
This is one of the most telling paragraphs of the entire essay. Here, Carr acknowledges the holes in his argument and I find myself agreeing with him. The introduction of every single piece of new technology is met with resistance from the conservative, nostalgic section of society but there are always those adventurous enough who are willing to explore something new.
Everything in life has positives and negatives and sometimes, we let the inertia of our lives control us and prevent us from the reaping the benefits of a new technology. The introduction of a new technology takes a lot away from a society but, at the same time, it introduces so much more. So I really do appreciate this instance of healthy self-skepticism on the part of Carr.
Graff brings up an interesting and relevant point about the modern education system. There is a significant emphasis on rote learning as opposed to understanding, particularly in High Schools. I personally recall memorising Mark Antony’s funeral speech two years ago for my English class and am still surprised that our teacher did not truly explain the speech beyond a few word definitions. This type of focus on memory seems to come from the emphasis on testing for evaluation and the inherent discomfort that is a part of open intellectual exchange. Intellectualism is not something that is encouraged in many schools. On the contrary, what is encouraged is “Intellectual-speak” creating an atmosphere where pretension at intellectualism becomes more important than true critical analysis.
Can you tell us more about this? I’d love to find out more details.
I feel like this challenging to agree with especially since I am a philosopher. I am always using articles and such that I find online to further my critical thinking/ideas. Also, I have experience in the medical fielding can say that I do the same. So, maybe it just his personal experience. I believe you can pick whether you want the technology to take over.
I think he is hinting at the difference between the contrast of his religious upbringing and his current identification as a “queer atheist intellectual.”
This description of the lyric essays aligns with Dr. Hall’s description. A lyric essay must bring the fire, it must have both physical and mental heat. I think Dr. Hall would enjoy the use of the word flirty to describe the lyric essay because he spoke a lot of how it is sonic and much of music has those flirty undertones. Categorizing the lyric essay as rebellious gives it the extra pizzazz that is apparently missing in the essay in and of itself.
The quote, “In the highest civilization the book is still the highest delight. He who has once known its satisfactions is provided with a resource against calamity,” is a great inspiration to young writers. Emerson indicates that literature is not, and never will be, a dying cause. Although written in a much different time period, this quote seems very applicable in today’s society as so much of our world is becoming digitized. His repetition of the word helps draw attention to his philosophy here.
“No kernel of nourishing corn can come to him but through his toil bestowed on that plot of ground which is given to him to till.” Given Emerson’s state of mind as a result of him living alone by the lake, it is not surprising that there is an abundance of nature related metaphors. When one is forced to live off the land and immerse themselves in their environment, it is no surprise that ones writing would reflect the lifestyle. Emerson uses a metaphor to relate the farming of corn to the cultivation of knowledge. He is making the point that knowledge is not something that happens overnight or without the help of others, but rather is a lengthy and involved process – much like growing a vegetable.
It is interesting to me that Warner is now an atheist. I believe his childhood’s “messy” way of teaching him the Bible has construed the actual meaning of the text. The points he are making are valid, but I keep thinking to myself as a relatively practicing christian, that I was taught in a different way and in my way of learning I feel the eternal life and death refer to the idea that we should not only care about what we accomplish in life on Earth but our main focus should be to be good people and therefore we will get to spend life after Earth in eternal peace.
I find the comparison of the lyric essay being an exception because of the metaphor used was very convincing. Flirty with poetry and alone were powerful to me because of this accepted idea being challenged.
I also looked into the last few sentences where Emerson states, “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself.” This quote has significance to Emerson’s message throughout the essay that you control what you do and how you choose to act. He encourages individuals to take risks and not let external forces affect their decisions. No external force or event should affect an individual’s decision or how to act whether that force was good or bad.
I think this paragraph is interesting because he had to walk a fine line between being street and book smart. Both were important in this situation because he was around different types of people. I think the importance of being one or the other depends on who you are around and what the situation is. In the classroom, it is way more important to be book smart. In a real life, being street smart is more important because you are in a more social situation. I think this paragraph shows why it is important to be balanced.
I agree with this partially because I feel like efficiency and immediacy are how our world runs these days. I think it is because of the internet and I feel these effects on a daily basis. However, I think that efficiency and immediacy is good for us like she said earlier in the fact that research does not take a lot of time.
I think the medium in which you read does not change the way you read. What is the traditional sense? Is reading a book online or paperback any real difference?
Taylor’s system of “algorithms” is definitely alive today. We use algorithms, formulas, systems in all aspects of our intellectual lives specifically. A GPA is an algorithm. How can I have the highest GPA possible? What GPA do I need to get into “x” and do “y” and “z”? Our standardized testing scores are also an example of this algorithm idea in our intellectual lives. People are hired to help kids score higher on the ACT and SAT. It’s an algorithm. Algorithms are at the forefront of the structures of our intellectual lives.
Here the author puts saturated in quotation marks, which for me makes it confusing. Does he agree with young people being argumentative, or does he believe that young people shouldn’t be religious, politic, etc. to please the older generations?
The idea that Graff is developing is truly the intent of modern education. The idea that if a student can remember a set of information for a short period of time, they can then pass the test, this means nothing for true intelligence. Memorization and the gaining of a skill are two completely different things. in my opinion the idea that someone can go through schooling without necessarily learning a useful skill is outrageous at the least. Yet the two types of intelligence Graff refers to are not accepted as equal and but can have significant effects on a persons same intellectual ability.
I find it interesting that Graff was alienated from books when he was young, but suddenly started to enjoy them in college. I was quite the opposite, I enjoyed books when I was younger, but slowly alienated myself from books. As the paragraph states “the only thing overanalyzing leads to is boredom” which I felt happen when we had to read a book for class and analyze it.
This paragraph expresses the purpose of the authors writing, but it also brings up an important detail within writing. Everyone is unique and holds different experiences to express their “unlikely package”. Writing is a way of expressing your personality, but why do schools not emphasize the technique of using text-to-self connections. Rather, we focus on text-to-text connection which is not as relatable to our reader. We try to come up with ideas that are forced to make sense because we must cite an additional article rather than our own life.
The process of reading online takes away the inclusion of senses that a physically copy contains. Not being able to hold a book and flip through each page decreases readers attention. Skimming becomes more common because people do not have the attention span to read through more than a few pages. Having articles and text online may be more convenient, but they do not engage the reader enough for their comprehension to be on the same level as when reading a physical book.
This statement really sticks out to me. The fact that for the first few years of an individual’s life they are forced into a system that has them learn the same content and mannerisms as other children their age. I believe that street smarts is the natural result of our individual experiences and ultimately the factor that allows for the individualization in our society.
Learning and adapting reading and writing is an important task to understand literature. This is important to be able to understand a lot of the “old rules” adjust and then compare to now today’s literature which has changed but is evolving for good. There are more people interested in the topics of literature making it a success. Without new people and new ideas there would be none of this.
I really like the point he makes about how “there must be many buried or hidden forms of intellectualism that do not get channeled into academic work..” How even in today there are issues with people in testing situations, they know the information but it does not show in the form of a timed exam. It makes me think about how much school values book smarts and not creativity and understanding of topics and materials. The way school systems work make people feel so unintelligent and on the verge of giving up, trying so hard and working hard if not harder then some people and still doing poorly. And how he goes into Street smarts is also an amazing point where it goes into there is common sense that people have in street smarts that some people with book smarts do not fully understand. They are two different ways of looking at a situation.
I agree with this because it has also made a lot of writers pieces known more than just a back shelf in a library. Looking on websites from google, and jstor. Google has everything we need, and you still have to read and analyze to figure out how to incorporate it into your own piece. I think it has also helped with plagiarism as well, with Google now you can search a sentence and figure out if someone already said it. Carr talks about how much of help that the internet has given him today and I agree, it has taken a toll on my life and has helped me with subjects in school and finding pieces to help my arguments in papers without the struggle of going to the library and not finding the book I need. It is so much easier with Google and I do not think at all that it is making us stupid because we are still doing the research just in a more convenient way.
Street smarts has proven to be another form of intelligence. Everyone has their own area of expertise, where one person struggles another excels. If everyone had the same mind set nothing would get accomplished or challenged. I found it to be spot on when Graff articulates how teachers rely on consumption rather than argument. I found this to be true in my duration of high school. The main way to achieve high grades was to memorize everything, not apply it. This is great if you can do that but personally my learning style is different. I agree with the fact that the key is not to make the students be someone they are not but to find the connections and link them up with innovated ideas. One has to be confident with their own unique form of intelligence in order to be able to learn and grow from others.
I do not necessarily think Google is making use stupid but I do think it is making us lazy. I agree on the fact that we lack the motivation to read long articles and we resort to finding something shorter. Google is sort of an easy way out to finding information to an essay or something but it also has benefits. We can quickly search for answers for anything and put our minds at ease since we often exaggerate things and think the worst is going to happen. I am stuck in the middle between whether I support Google or think it is indeed making us stupid. Do the pros weigh out the cons? Or do the cons overpower the pros?
I thought this was an interesting point that an essay is a pathway to another person’s mind. When reading an essay there are no interruptions, no one cutting off your ideas, one is able to get out their whole point at one time. Writing is a valuable tool that can provide insight to another perspective that someone did not realize before. The idea of reading someone’s memories is like a mental movie of someone else’s life and is affective for being able to tap into one’s emotions.
I disagree with this statement. There is an insane amount of information on the internet; it is impossible to take in more than what we are interested in. Each person has specific interests, hobbies, and jobs, so most of the information we take in will be centered around those. Plus, I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing to be “pancake people.” We are able to get so much more information on so many new things, so why not take advantage of that? Why is it bad to have a little information on many topics? We will have more in-depth knowledge about the hobbies we are into or if we go on to get a PHD, so why is knowing more about other, random topics bad?
In this paragraph Emerson talks about how a lot of the time men do “good actions” as an “apology or extenuation of their living in the world.” I think when Emerson makes this statement, he is talking about the fact that there are very few people who will flat out do a good deed. He is trying to say that mostly everyone makes a choice to do something “good” out of the fact that the person feels it is their moral duty to do so and they would feel some form of guilt if they did not do this.
This paragraph is particularly relatable. Actually, having good grades, loving books and being interested in what was taught at school could be seen as a defect by our classmates when we were young. We could be considered as the teacher’s pet, which would often conclude in solitude and loneliness. However, holding back our interest for science or literature could be really frustrating ! We were stuck between two options: having friends, or make our parents proud. As a child, having friends seem really important. Nevertheless, getting recognition from our parents is equally important for our development. Therefore, this dilemma – having to choose between the feeling of belonging to a group or intellectual improvement – can really have an important negative impact on a child’s development.
This perfect search engine would now be linked to AI, like Chat GPT. Actually, this AI seems even more “intelligent” than Google, because it takes all your words into consideration. Your research does not only rely on key words. Moreover, it can create its own text as a response to our demand; it can revise, summarize, link the information it gets from an impressive database, while Google will just give you the access to pages linked to the theme. It can be really useful if it is used efficiently. Actually, a medicine teacher said that thanks to Chat GPT he can do his work in one day instead of one week. It is a great time-saver to initiate your thinking and to give you ideas. In this way, it can be seen as a tool to make us more productive as thinkers. However, you can also use it badly. In fact, you can rely on this AI to make all your work; it can write entire essays for example ! This is not an good way to use this tool : we would not even need to do any research anymore, nor to create our own sentences, to get our own writing style, and to think by ourselves. To conclude, AI can actually increase our productivity as thinkers, but only if we use it in a responsible way and continue to train our own brain.
I think the use of Robert Kendall’s hypertext is really effective in this essay, especially when the author describes her feelings towards this poem. She uses her own reception of the text to counter Birkerts’ argument (saying that hypertext is not true literature). The disagreement with Birkerts is clearly showed : “does exactly what Birkerts’ claims it is incapable of : it inspires”. The transition between Birkerts’ pessimism and her own idea is really smooth yet clear, and is really efficient in this essay.
I think that what could be revised is the way of opposing one’s idea. It seems sometimes brutal and may appear condescending :”I think it’s absolutely ridiculous”. As a reader of this essay, it makes me think that the author is disrespectful towards the opinions of other people, as if her opinion was the only one worth considering. I think it would be better to bring in the other people idea and to counter it properly with arguments instead of describing it as ridiculous.
The last sentence is really effective, it ends perfectly this essay. It is a good idea to borrow a sentence from another author and to adapt it to the context, it creates a good stylistic effect !
“Today one can hardly pick up the sports page or listen to sports talk radio without being plunged into conflicts over race, gender, drugs…”
I agree with statement because it is very true nowadays. Most of the time you put something about sports, it’ll most likely be about an athlete’s situation or something with a negative connotation. That usually happens with many other subjects, they do this to catch peoples attention.
The authors use of pathos is strong due to its connection to the average reader. Many readers have eveperiences being lost in a text. The second example isn’t necessarily as strong because every reader doesn’t lose that connection over time.
In this part of his argument he fully disagrees with Birkerts. He agrees with most of society that the upgrade in technology has saved us millions of hours trying to find things that are on our mind. His example was that without the internet he would have to look through endless books to find the information he was looking for. Him being a writer as well would help prove to Birkerts that it isn’t only the millenniums that are heavily influenced by google and what it has to offer.
Going back to what we discussed in class, teachers breaking down Shakespeare into common language and comparing it to modern events and problems allows students to understand and interpret the text much more effectively. So in a sense, the core concepts were identical despite the use of “intellectual” vs “vernacular” language.
For the most part I agree that some classes focus heavily on memorization which to an extent is good but most students see it as useless information. However, I do believe some high schools and teachers have tried to minimize the amount of pointless memorization and shift focus to discussions of problems and issues that made the class more relevant. For example, I took AP US History in high school and although we were required to retain certain facts, dates, and events, we still needed to be able to argue a topic from multiple points of view. Although history is not as dynamic as other subjects, my experience was positive and enabled me to think about history in a different way besides just facts and date memorization.
I think in today’s society people are much more accepting of others interests. It’s quite acceptable to be an athlete AND and intellectual, or an artists AND an athlete, or an artist AND and intellectual and so on. I also think its interesting how we define “intellect”. For me I consider a person intelligent if they do well in school but, I also consider them intelligent if they know things I do not. Personally if I knew someone who was very knowledgeable on a topic I know nothing about, I would perceive them as smart.
Carr strengthens his argument by telling his audience that he is not the only one who is experiencing these kinds of problems with reading. By noting that others share his concerns it communicates to the audience that this is a pervasive problem.
I find it interesting that he keeps referring to the internet as “Net” almost like Net is a person. This goes back to is point about the web becoming artificial intelligence, how it has a mind of its own. I think it is another strategy the author uses to personalize the internet and make a point that the internet is a being that has control over our lives. It makes his argument more eerie and makes the audience feel that is it no longer an inanimate object but rather a machine like a monster that changes the way we think
I absolutely agree that intellect is strongly associated with how well a person does in school. I believe that many people forget to think about the different ways a person can be intellectual. For example, someone can be very emotionally intelligent and have the ability to put themselves in someone else’s shoes in order to understand how they are feeling, but they might struggle in the classroom. I would still consider this person to be intelligent eventhough their strengths are not in academia. I believe that we should be more open to the idea that intelligence can have many different forms.
This quote stuck out to me because I interpreted it to mean that the internet is shaping our thought processes and telling us how to think about certain topics. In my own personal experience, I find this quote to be false. I take time to closely read the articles or websites that I find in my google searches to determine if the information is correct and if I agree with the piece. I don’t allow myself to believe someone else’s opinion about a topic without doing my own research on the topic first. However, I can only speak to my own personal experiences because I know that some of my friends are guilty of forming opinions about a topic based on reading one article about someone else’s opinion.
Comment #1: I think this entire paragraph is working really well with the text. The author does a great job of countering Birkerts by talking about the depth of this hypertext and how it inspires people. This directly counters Birkerts argument that hypertexts are not “true literature” because they lack depth. I really enjoyed reading the authors personal experience with this hypertext and I think it was a great addition to this paragraph because of how it strengthened the argument.
Comment #2: After reading this essay, I would love to hear more about what the author thinks about Murray’s extreme opinions.
The finishing sentence in this paragraph really caught my attention. While in English classes I find myself not comprehending the text in as much detail as I need to be. I feel as though everyone else always got a deeper meaning and I was just skimming the surface. And I never truly read for pleasure until recently, but I have realized that this has actually helped improve how I evaluate the meaning of this text. Reading to find out how the ending actually turns out instead of being forced made me enjoy literature that much more.
Right of the bat you can get a strong sense of his argument. I agree with this statement, feeling as though the overuse of social media and quick reads has evolved my attention to be capable of doing small activities. I cannot focus through any more than five pages of a text, and I have to take multiple breaks while completing homework.
I agree with the statement that Wolf is making. We now rely on what comes most efficiently or quickly over everything. This has a major toll on the depth we go into our reading, usually never getting to the “hidden message” others always talk about. We become so distracted by our lives and things happening around us that we rarely even have time to focus on pieces of literature anymore.
These are more questions than comments, but: Why does he regard to his younger self as his “former self”? Does he consider that a part of him that no longer existence?
I think that this just points out what is already known. Similar to the fact that everyone learns differently, everyone has different things that they are more eager to learn. This however does not mean that you can only learn things that you already know. It just means that people are more likely to learn and master a subject that is of personal interest to them rather than something they are forced to learn about.
It is very interesting to see someone considering resisting their teachings/ theory as being intellect. It’s refreshing that individuality, free thinking, and a strong mind are considered to but good things by someone who is writing to teach/ inform. Very often we see authors who write to that do not welcome disbelief or contradictions.
Mclaughlin makes a point I agree with when he states,” To emerge a critical theory, street smarts have to undergo transformation”. This bridge that McLaughlin describes is between student and teacher but it makes me think that a student to self or student-student relationship also has an effect on “street smarts”. In today’s society with external and environmental activities, one compares themselves to others in any aspect of their life. Sometimes those interactions can be all from a mentality and block or slow your progress as an individual to grow. Sometimes students or people, in general, fall back into this cookie-cutter world when teachers and educators try to shape them each individually. McLaughlin states, ” it is a matter of finding points of convergence and translation,” I like this phrase because it is something that as a student, I have experienced with some teachers throughout life and now see more educators support this structure as opposed to “curriculums and state test” and the expectations held by them.
After reading this line alone, I reflect back to the chapter on Birkerts and how the brain is programmed to read and interpret the literature at that time. Technology has had an influence on knowledge and skills from that form of understanding but now with electronics, it has evolved to what we need now.
If we are seeking convenience then what about the physical literature is Carr digressing from? He mentioned the similar experiences he shared with friends but that goes against his argument for new perspectives on reading. He is looking to an ingroup that does not serve him many if any new perspectives.
I wonder if there is a distinct link between the changed perception of wilderness and the rise of hyper-individualism. It seems as though the desire for wilderness tends to be a solo excursion for many modern Americans, sometimes even a journey of rebirth(think Cheryl Strayed and Chris McCandless). I could see this aligning with individualism’s ideal of self-reliance. The uptake of individualism also came in a time of modernity that offered a certain sense of safety; there was less need for community for survival.
I agree that there is a gap between popular culture and school also. I also agree with Liza about if they were to bridge the gap between the two that it would open up a new realm of schooling. If that were to occur, I believe that students would actually be more interested and willing to learn.
I agree with this passage because I feel like some classes, teachers and relationships that are built with their students can bring or create another identity and make the students more interest in what is being taught.
I know the definition of “intellectualism” via Webster and other dictionaries. But I was curious as to students’ personal descriptions or definitions of “intellectualism”.
What is your definition of “intellectualism” or “anti-intellectualism” you’re basing this off of?
I like this paragraph because it gives the reader a personal antidote that helps me connect with the reader more. I do not think I understood the whole idea of this paragraph but I still liked.
It appears Graff values the skill of arguing over the outcome of an argument. He seems to be ignoring the issue of who is wrong and who is right, but emphasizing the insight of knowledge required and gained when you form an argument. In questioning masculinity and it’s symbols, he invites others to argue with him or agree with him. He assumes that reading creates the same engagement or separation with the author.
The way we read has certainly changed, likely more so than the way we think. We still think about gaining knowledge and try to comprehend what we read the same way as before, but the internet makes it easier to find a short answer and we don’t have to do as much searching through a book because we can just find it in a “search” bar online.
Efficiency is growing without a doubt, and Google and the rest of the internet are following that pattern. Anyone who ignored Taylor’s method would be left behind in the manufacturing industry, just as someone who strictly reads print in this day and age would not be as efficient as someone knowing how to use the internet. Therefore, does being more efficient mean we are smarter?
Paragraph 5 in comparison to paragraph 4 causes me believe that Carr thinks his brain is slowly turning into a simple form of technology that needs to be hooked up to a more complex form (i.e. Google) for it to reach its full intellectual capacity.
To an extent I understand where Carr and friends are coming from. This blog post alone took much longer than it should have for me to complete reading it, but at the same time I read books just as much now as I have since my love of reading was born in 8th grade. For me, it depends on the subject matter. I think that I am able to read most fiction books with ease because I have an overwhelming sense of curiosity and want to know what happens next. In a piece of literature like this I can get a sense of where the rest of the essay is going just by reading the title and introduction paragraph. Past that my interest and curiosity begin to wane. Whether this be because of speed browsing the internet, or because I can already imagine the conclusion as to why I struggle in reading essays like this one remains to be solved.
I think that by calling these intellectual resources “street smarts” takes away from the importance of the types of intelligences generally grouped into the term. Although not all of these so called “street smarts” are equal to topics such as nuclear fission and Plato, some of them are way under-looked, such as mechanics (i.e. how to fix one’s car engine) – a subject not generally taught in schools as a core class even though it is something that effects all of us on a regular basis. There are other subjects – such as organization, situational awareness, how to live a healthy lifestyle, etc. – that are just as important as, if not more, what is taught in class that are completely undermined by schools as not comparable to the works of Shakespeare and his fellow scholars.
Everybody tends to label jocks as stupid. However, some jocks are smarter than people realize. Our society should stop and listen to everybody’s thoughts and ideas. A lot of jocks that I knew back in high school were in high level classes.
Deep reading is not natural for me. It bothers Carr that his mind wonders when he is reading, but for many people, it is natural.
When Carr says “my mind wants to take information in swiftly moving streams of particles,” I agree with him. However, I disengage from media and spend time thinking about the information that has come in.
This seems to speak to the history of essay writing and the future of essay writing. Monson is saying we use anything and everything to communicate our ideas in an essay. We are free to use the technology of today and all the “old” written literary references of the past to try to reach others with our essays.
“We are as much informed of a writer’s genius by what he selects as by what he originates. We read the quotation with his eyes, and find a new and fervent sense”
I think Emerson is trying to say that a writer may take an idea from somewhere else and shine a light on it that lets us see something we might not see ourselves if we were looking at it.
“Only an inventor knows how to borrow, and every man is or should be an inventor.”
I think Emerson is telling us is that we should borrow from the past and from the ideas of others, and make something out of that.
In this paragraph, Emerson mentions the characteristics and qualities of being a leader. All people and leaders make mistakes, but how an individual learns from their mistake is what makes them a better leader. Everybody is equal and the respect needs to distributed equally among everybody.
There are street smarts that are if not equally smarter, smarter, than book smarts. So much of academic material revolves around those people who are book smart, and those with street smarts feel less intellectual because they can’t do well in what the school demands them to do well in. If academics tapped into a more diverse type of academic criteria, it would give a more fair and beneficial learning experience for all students.
This is a very relatable paragraph to a wide audience of readers. Carr does a good job trying to make a connection with the reader right away. His description is accurate as well. Although for some people in our generation, reading was never as easy as Carr describes because even when some of us were young we were more invested in the technology rather than the books.
This paragraph is a real argument grabber. Carr is arguing that because of the net, we have become lazier with reading books because the net just hands us info. The sentence that really stuck out to me is “The more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing.” This really grabbed my attention because it is so relatable. When I open an article on my phone or laptop and am scrolling down the article and find that it is a long article, the last thing I want to do is read all of it. The only time I really do read it is if the article keeps on grabbing my attention. I think this is why Twitter has such a big role in social media because people of twitter just read a quick 140 character tweet about anything. It is a quick read and does not take a lot of time to read multiple tweets. This is just an example of why the net has a bigger hold on the younger generation compared to books.
I agree with the idea that every student has the capacity to express their intelligence. However, some students need more encouragement from teachers than others. Often times, the students who speak a lot in class are not smarter than those who do not speak as much. The students who speak more just received more encouragement and positive reinforcement for sharing their ideas than others.
It’s interesting to see the essay described as feeling like something old, since it is still a fairly “modern” form in the larger scheme of things. Also, there seems to be a modern resurgence of the essay in the last twenty years. Also, as a counter to the comment on them being “encased in tombs like the Oxford Book of the Essay”–the same thing happens to short stories. Could it simply be due to their length?
It seems here as though Emerson is speaking of how other reading can be used. The word “accompanied” here seems key, which hints back at his discussion in “The American Scholar.” The “original power” must mix with the “assimilating power” for anything good to come from it. We are drawn to the combination of these two, he argues, for it doesn’t matter to us whose words they are as long as they lead towards some knowledge/truth.
“The worth of the sentences consists in their radiancy and equal aptitude to all intelligence.” He talks in this essay about how truth is something treasured and shared by humanity. He also seems to say here and elsewhere in the essay that quotations are good when they are used towards further intelligence or to explain a point, etc. For example, he later speaks about how a person can use a quote to further extrapolate truth from it. The quoter takes it in and can spit something better out, when used appropriately.
I think, besides some contradicting points, this essay aligns well with the discussion of “creative reading” in “The American Scholar.”
I really like the way that Graff sees teaching. In my experience, the best teachers are those who are able to relate to the students and help the students see the parallels in their own lives to the information they are teaching in class. Graff did a wonderful job of framing his argument that street smarts are an avenue that can open doors to a different form of learning (in the classroom).
I think this is an incredible paragraph and an important idea that Graff has began to introduce here. Although I think many people would agree that there are different “types” of intellect (i.e. street vs. book smart), I think many people, and especially more educated scholars, fail to realize, what in my opinion is the right way to bring these two types of intellects together. I think again, many people believe that the only way to bridge this gap between the two groups is to teach the more street smart people how to properly communicate with the book smart. While I do believe it is important to learn how to express your thoughts in a clear and educated way, I think that forcing these street smart people to mold into the more book smart form, is a disservice to both parties. Those on the street smart end are formed into intellectuals that are not where they feel comfortable, and lose a part of themselves. Those on the book smart side are never able to truly understand the vernacular and different type of intellect that the street smarts can bring to them, had the two parties met more in the middle.
Monson seems to be making the initial point that essays are lacking some kind of element that might otherwise render them entertaining. But, while essays may lack some kind of oomph, like a memoir, they are certainly more purposeful. This is a great way to get the reader thinking about the idea of “hacking” or reinventing the essay. It can certainly be rethought, however there are is still some remaining contribution of the essay that the writer isn’t ready to give up.
I think it’s interesting that Emerson assumes a unique and brilliant person as someone who has been influenced by other works. He writes, “Our high respect for a well-read man is praise enough of literature”. The position reads that we obtain knowledge through reading, and that “spontaneous power” is a cultivation of influences. Emerson is not necessarily agreeing or arguing with this point, he just notes that society tends to understand knowledge as stemming from literature. It’s a really great way for the introduction to begin the topic of conversation that Emerson deals with throughout the essay.
This paragraph seems to stem from the idea, “ne te quaesiveris extra”, or do not seek outside yourself. According to Emerson, creativity is best captured through our own expression, not imitation. I think what Emerson means in the lines following “preestablished harmony” is that while creativity should be found within, certain passions are born in us. “God will not have…” understands that a higher power has specifically provided us with certain, unique work. Therefore, to differentiate from yourself, and to look at the outside world for education, or influence, is to ignore the work we were created for. Emerson also claims that we are only truly happy when we finish genuine, honest work.
In my own experience as a student, I have typically held those in teaching positions with a form of distancing respect. With most of my teachers, I recognize that they have a stronger knowledge, in their field, than I do. However, I do not view this as obtainable knowledge. The understanding required to teach is so specific yet full within a subject. While their dedication is inspiring, the task to get to where they are seems daunting. In today’s educational society where youth are taught to not pigeon-hole themselves, students may feel overwhelmed in trying to find the interest that will spark their career. I personally gained knowledge from a wide variety of subjects throughout my lower level education and know that, at least for me, this fed my confusion instead of revealing my capitalistic interest.
I believe that there is still a stigma surrounding literature and English studies. People find it less valuable than the mathematics and sciences.
I agree that argumentation can be a means of expressing intellectualism, but that it is in most environments especially school frowned upon. I personally believe that it is the ways in which students argue that takes away from the content and puts focus on them “acting out,” as Graff puts it. Students and people in general need to develop the ability to control their argumentative skills. Often, people become heated and narrow minded in their argument, making it hard for them to move on from it. By not being able to control the way one argues merely wastes or diminishes the actual intellectual content being delivered by both sides. The skill of intellectual argument must be developed in a student by their teachers and mentors throughout their education. This way they will be able to clearly articulate an argument and express their knowledge, beliefs, and interests.
There is obviously this sense of change on various levels. As our world changes so do we. However, in this paragraph there is a negative feeling toward this alteration of the mind due to the influences of the internet. I think that there are definitely positive and negative aspects to having information at such an easy access. I think we are learning more than ever before. On some level I somewhat agree with Carr in the fact that more often than not keeping focus for long periods of time is difficult for most people because we are living in such a fast paced environment where everything is constantly moving and changing.
Carr recognizes that having information at easy access has a lot of benefits. However, he makes a point that in making thing faster and easier we lose something. Through the use of his analogy in the last sentence he describes how we are losing depth, as we merely move quickly along the surface to take in even more information. I agree that while we are gaining a lot we are losing something vital.
That is a very good tip especially to those fresh to the blogosphere.
Brief but very precise info… Appreciate your sharing this one.
A must read post!
Autumn, I 100% agree with you on this. While reading this portion of the essay, I could only think about the saying “Everyone is a genius but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” I think that the school system often forgets students are individuals with varying interests and intellects. Not everyone excels in math or sciences. Not everyone excels in the arts. Does that make one person any smarter than the other? Why does the school system take so long to encourage people’s individuality and strengths? Applying to colleges, we as students are encouraged to display our strengths and uniqueness. However, we aren’t encouraged to do so while in school. Instead we are expected to be like everyone else. Standardized tests exist in order to scale one’s intelligence but what about those who are poor test takers? Why do we only test reading, math, and science abilities? Just something to think about…there is so much more to being smart or “an intellectual” than having good grades.
Carr is easy to relate to in this paragraph. His personal experience of drifting off during a long passage is one that most students and even adults relate to. However, there are several reasons we could be drifting off while reading these pieces. As writers, we are taught to break our paragraphs up so the reader can go through them more easily. We are taught to write with inflection and interest in order to capture our readers. Sometimes I wonder if the lack of interest is on my side or the writer’s side.
In terms of the question, “Is Google making us stupid?” I disagree. Lazy maybe, but not stupid. In fact, Google provides such a diverse collection of resources for everything from research papers to recipes. I believe it enhances our knowledge and allows for everything to be in one place. As with everything else in our lives, it needs to be used properly and for the right reasons. Google is something that comes down to pros and cons. Does one set significantly outweigh the other?
Carr’s use examples and research make him not only an easier author to read, but also one to connect with and even respect. I like that he backed up the anecdotes with research and other reputable sources. It leaves less room for arguments and more room for actual discussion of the topic. There isn’t just his opinion or experience in there. With Birkerts, sometimes I feel like I am just supposed to take his personal experience for what it is with little evidence or back-up to support his argument.
I find it interesting how Warner refers to himself as being, “one of Satan’s agents”, but why does he say this? Might it be that he has the label of, “queer atheist intellectual” or is there some deeper meaning behind this?
Graff makes a valid point here as to that students with street-smarts won’t have any say in any public sphere until they release their inner argumentative intellectualism. Today people only truly listen to those who bring valid points in any type of argument within the public sphere. Without that argumentative intellectualism, many people can have no say in any decisions that are made open to the public or suggest an alternative to something of that nature.
Street smarts are an important skill to have outside of the classroom and can be hard to teach, so it is frustrating that schools do not acknowledge that type of intellectualism.
I agree with the statement that school does nothing to encourage intellectualism. I also believe that some institutions even discourage the learning process by setting too many standards and expectations for who an intellectual is supposed to be. If institutions were more open to different learning styles there may be more people that would discover their love for learning.
This reminds me of the quote by Albert Einstein that goes “If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing it is stupid.” I think that schools do place too much emphasis on those who are book smart instead of embracing different talents and abilities.
I completely agree with Graff about the gap between pop culture and school. There is a huge gap in those areas, and if the school system touched on them it would open a whole new realm of schooling.
I think this is a very important paragraph considering that this is an argument that we have seen a lot in class recently. Everyone is afraid they are going to lose something; knowledge, print, etc. I think it is an important part of the argument because chances are you will lose something in the shift.
This is an idea along the lines of what we looked at about the importance of reading and writing. Writing is incredibly important-it is how others see what we are thinking. Writing brings people together, it allows the writer and readers to have something to refer to because it doesn’t disappear.
It is interesting how Warner mentions that certain religious practices questioned his intellectual capability. Often times theological concepts can be perceived as controversial and “overlooked” as Warner states because of it being completely different to an academic perspective.
As the Internet has become more commonly used in today’s society for daily activities, it has become a part of our culture, as well as a societal expectation. It has now become expected of us that we will use the Internet, and in a sense, as a group, become digital addicts. Since Google has become a resourceful search engine, most of us use it because of its efficiency and ease of access. Google has information available for us at the tip of our fingers, filled with rich resources (e.g. electronic books, academic journals). Due to that, we have become more lazy because instead of driving or walking to the library, we would rather sit in the comfort of our homes to retrieve information. However, the increased used has not within itself made us stupid.
Users are not reading traditionally online because the Web is not designed for us to think linearly. As we are reading an article online, researching, using Google Docs, etc., our attention drifts elsewhere. That is, because of the Internet’s feature of being able to upon up multiple tabs. The multiplicity, within itself, represents the complex way of thinking that the Internet sways its users to think.
This paragraph with how Carr relates personal experiences with a blog writer is more persuasive because I can relate to taking breaks from writing to surf the internet and not being able to stay focused on long writing pieces which causes me to procrastinate.
I agree with Graff that teacher tends to focus on those students who are less intelligent, but not those students who have great intellect academic skills, they are being buried.
I definitely agree with what Carr had to say in this paragraph, that it is unsettling that the founders of Google wish to create a super search engine that alternatively functions like artificial intelligence. Creating something that is smarter than yourself is not exactly the most intelligent thing to do because the creation would be able to outsmart you and gain control over everything. Especially if it is the internet that is being given this power because almost everything is run on the internet nowadays including, TVs, phones, computers, even newer cars.
I believe that schools try to force students to think one way, like teachers were given the assignment to truly “convert” students into wanting to become intellectuals as this paragraph is stating. I agree with the author and Crandus here that a better alternative to creating interest in being an intellectual would be to hold a debate or some sort of activity that allows students to express their true feelings/thoughts. Growing up in public school, I have always been more interested and engaged when teachers allow us to go a little off task and talk amongst our peers about our ideas, rather than them being shoved down our throats. Given this option instead could make teaching easier, as well as students seeing a different perspective and wanting to be an intellectual, both book and street smart.
This paragraph begins to dive deeper into how technology has started to adjust and shape the way we think. As a society we have added many distractions and it has become hard to focus on immersing oneself in a book; you’ll be interrupted by a text or a social media notification just as you start to get into the novel. it has become nearly impossible to solely focus on one thing at a time.
Allowing street smarts and book smarts to connect would definitely be beneficial, as they are definitely supposed to be used as a “vehicle” for one another. I believe that subjects taught can be so broad, but when you are able to find a specific field that connects your personal interests with academia, you are able to become almost an expert in that field because you are more likely to flourish when you enjoy something.
I loved this paragraph, I grew up in the public school system in the country and I noticed lots of kids at school getting in trouble a lot for expressing themselves. They were given no help or opportunities to prove who they are, they were just perceived as a disturbance and got into trouble and continued to get into trouble because they were given no guidance. I liked how this was brought up and shows that it happens everywhere and all the time. Some teachers don’t provide any counsel to these students and they continue down a bad path. I have always thought of myself as a book smart type of person, not a street smart person and I like how the previous paragraph mentions this as well.
Just because the net is becoming a universal medium as they say, doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. Everyone uses the internet and everyone uses technology as a form of communication nowadays. we have advanced as a society making it more efficient and beneficial to our lives. it has improved our ability to take in more information, and communicate with more people allowing connections and networking to be present more. the ability to use the internet and technology now is a privilege especially for those that are disabled and need it for their daily lives.
Many people have a hard time keeping their focus when they indulge themselves into some form of literary text. This is a very natural phenomena that affects millions of people. The way Carr describes how reading was easy back in the past and he feels as if he is losing more of his focus while reading in the present makes his struggle very relatable to others.
Carr speaks on how the internet had a big hold on his daily life and that can be very relatable. However to use the internet is a choice and Carr allowed himself to be engulfed by the media the internet can overwhelm you with. The internet can be very corrupting only if you allow it to. When Carr started to drift off from working into randomly clicking on link to link, he let the internet take a bigger and bigger foothold in his life. This is something that happens to many people today every day. There are people that can not live without some form of the internet. In our time people are always using technology such as their phones to gain access to the internet to get their daily fix of media.
This does not make us stupid, but maybe we could consider that google overwhelms our brain with so many sources of information that our focus level decreases. Google can bring up many distracting things during searches, but at the end of the day its up to you to click on those distracting links instead of focusing more on what your supposed to.
I identify with this specific passage a lot. Sometimes when I’m reading a book, I feel like a page is eternal and reading more than five is arduous work. I also get distracted by my phone with great ease when I’m reading a physical book.
It is interesting how teachers are viewed by students. In most cases it is thought that teachers do not have intellect in the same areas of life as students. Teaching is thought to be their only specialty but when seen outside of school, as said in the reading, they have a life outside the classroom. This shows that people can be intellectual in not just one subject matter and that intellect could be hidden or not yet found. The students have a life outside of the classroom as well.
I find it very interesting how the internet is changing the way we read. I can definetly see how it affects people of my age. Most people do not even like to read in the first place. So for them the drive to want to read is not there. What makes this worse is that the internet and technology is used by everyone my age. With that reading becomes more difficult. They are always jumping back and forth on readings online.
He makes a good point here how theres a tendency to glorify technology but also a countertendency to expect the worst from it. People have different opinions and different views on technology. Some think its changing the world in a positive way and some think it is addicting and shouldn’t be used. How I see it is we must as a society, change the ways in which we use. We must use it only for the benefit of the world and of us.
You actually explained it perfectly.
We live in a society that in ways both punishes and praises intellectualism. Young intellectuals may feel the need to hide their level of intelligence in the fear that they will be judged by their peers and not accepted due to being superior academically. In today’s society it is much more socially acceptable and is much more impressive to be an apathetic B student than to be a hardworking A student. When students find that there are minimal ways to find praise and assurance through academics they are more likely to invest their time into things that will garner more attention socially, like sports.
Carr discusses how his friends and acquaintances, despite being literarily intellectual, have recently found themselves having similar experiences in that they are finding difficulties in reading. Unlike Carr and his friends, I am not literarily intellectual. I’ve grown up in the age where information is valued most when it’s in easy, bite-sized pieces, as opposed to “long drawn-out abstracts”. I feel that this has played a part not only the social consensus on reading, but my personal ability to read. I find myself rushing to Sparknotes to get the jist of what I’m reading as opposed to putting in the time to comprehend larger amounts of information through reading the book.
In most cases this isn’t a problem. People absorbing small tidbits of information quickly as opposed to “reading in the traditional sense” really just allows the average person to gain a larger outlook on current events. The only negative side to the “power browse” that I can see would be the public’s unwarranted trust given to articles. “Horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins,” people gain some type of a sense of superiority when they “power browse” despite in no way being informed on the topic.
Emerson explains in this paragraph how to be a respected leader. He describes a great leader as someone who takes on the duty to oversee every aspect, including the faults, of the the group you are leading. You have to recognize the faults and learn how to make it better to allow everyone to have an equal chance of being happy. The standards and law you set forward need apply to everyone, including yourself. If you, yourself, fail to meet the standards then you will lose respect of others. While interacting with the people you need to see them as an equal, to show the great respect that everyone has the right to demand from another.
I think that this is good use of quotation. It enhances the point being made. I don’t think an entire separate paragraph was necessary, however. The quote is strong and could have been brought into other points being made bit by bit.
This is a very good example of including the reader. It’s really effective in putting us in the mind space of a reader, a writer. It offers solid advice and creates good visual.
I thought that the beginning of this paragraph was interesting, “A great man quotes bravely and will not draw on his invention when his memory serves him with a word as good.” I think that what Emerson is saying is that a smart man will use the ideas that were presented before him, and make them just as valuable as his own could be. This is interesting to me, however, because in other works of his (“American Scholar”) Emerson makes claims that the scholar should be independent and original. He claims that we should be focusing more on the present than the past, so his change in tone was surprising to me.
Though I did not understand the first quote, I appreciated that Emerson began the essay with two quotes. I think they created a certain tone for the essay that was effective. The second in particular had really powerful imagery: “commands all light…our fatal shadows that walk by us still.” It was a good precursor to the original thoughts that Emerson had on self-reliance.
I often find myself only engaging in public argument in certain settings. I respond well to in class discussions prompted by professors and/or my peers. Although I am comfortable speaking in the classroom, I am less liekly to engage in intellectual argumentation in an outside setting where I am less comfortable. I had an excellent teacher for AP Lang who prompted me to go out of my comfort zone and share my thoughts with my peers. Without teachers like her who allow students to make themselves comfortable in a judgement-free environment, then students may never be able to express themselves in a public setting without feeling judged or uncomfortable.
This comment is a clear hasty generalization of today’s society. First of all, there are many times where skimming article titles is an efficient way to find an article that conforms to your search topic better. Doesn’t everyone power browse abstracts and contents to see if the article is worth their while? Isn’t that the entire purpose of an abstract? Many times I personally go online to find an article or two to jumpstart my research before I go scaling the library for textbooks. Maybe instead of thinking users are not traditional, we should admire the adaptation and think of it as efficient and not lazy. Technology is changing everyday; it would be useless if we didn’t use it to our advantage.
I think that this is what limits academic writing. Throughout our education, essay require textual evidence whether it is from research or a news article, student are not allowed to take evidence from their own lives to support their argument
I agree with Emily. Schools now encourage student to apply their knowledge to real world problem with methods that allow students to do a lot of the learning by themselves rather than the teacher just throwing facts and having them regurgitate it.
I think this an interesting comment because it provides a whole new perspective on Birkerts’ argument. Its no that the electronic medium has completely faded the reading all together, the medium has changed the way we think causing us to drift from the print medium because of its inconvenience.
Though this extends Birkerts’ argument, I ask what is the difference between reading something on the electronic medium then it is with a print medium? l Can’t we just print the post and call it print? What difference does it make that these mediums have such a drastic change in the way we read?
This is strong evidence, but I ask, what significance does this hold? Is he arguing that the way we read w is digressing our capability to read? If that is what he is arguing I would have to disagree because we are still performing the same activity, but on a totally different medium.
Dunn in “In other words,” refuses to agree with “illiteracy…[as] an outdated concern,” and that we need to “continue to find heroes and heroines [from literacy].” What I’d like to argue and Graff points out is that there is a reason why people don’t gravitate towards common literacy. For him is was a form of rebellion and also in our day to day it’s that there are so many other forms of “literacy” to appreciate. Having so much media and forms in which to take it provides culture with many differing avenues and perspectives to find one’s own creative license. We are still finding heroes and heroines, just in different ways.
The use of “we” shows a sense of inclusion which allows Carr to connect with the average reader.
When reading this section I found it very interesting how Holden perceived formal vs informal language. When talking about formal language or as he calls it “Intellectual speak” he describes it as something “phonies” used. That using formal language was alienating and felt detached. While informal language felt more personal and authentic. I think that these perceptions stem from Holden’s negative experience in school and the stereotypes he associated with “intellectualism.”
The question this entire text has been pondering is in this paragraph. How can students not give up their own ways and still “talk the talk” of the intellectual world?
Like the author of the article, I realized my 7th grade science teacher had a life outside of the classroom when her daughter played on my little sisters soccer team. As students, especially at a young age, we look at teachers as people of higher intellect. When we see these teachers outside of the classroom, we realize that we really aren’t that different when it comes to being individuals. As we grow older, students and teachers create a symbiotic relationship learning and teaching each other.
It is almost comical how the author jumps right to an assumption of the internet. He does not think, at this point, that it could be anything else. Old age, maybe even a psychological disorder, but his first assumption is the internet.
The quote of the clock: the clock “disassociated time from human events and helped create the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences” really sticks out to me. earlier in this paragraph it talks about how we take on the qualities of technology. If this is the case, because of computers, humans are very knowledgeable. This is a great example used by the author.
After reading this article, I came back to this comment I made earlier. What I really enjoyed about this argument was there was no beating around the bush. He makes a point, backs it up with detail and does a great job presenting his information.
Writing hacks requires so much skill, work, and time. I think this is a key point to what the author is trying to say, yet it is just a small paragraph at the end of a subtopic.
What kind of academic work would people learn that is not math, English, and History that would allow these different forms of intellectualism to be channeled?
I find it interesting that we still place labels on those who excel at something without considering they could very well excel at multiple things. For example, someone who excels at sports would be considered a “jock” which as a society we view as someone who messes around in school and only cares about their sport. In reality, this person may very well excel at school and sports but we only see one or the other. I think as we grow older we learn that being intellectual is not “bad” and that it actually is important for those who want to work in fields that require a lot of education. So for those above leaving comments on how we no longer look down upon those who are intellectuals, I believe it’s our viewpoint changing and not society as a whole.
I agree that school do not encourage specific intellectualism they don’t allow you to explore the options and find your path. It does get better as we grow older but it is still hard to explore when everybody is basically forcing you to pick a path as soon as possible. I believe that if we can even decide a field to study in by the end of sophomore year of college that is a blessing.
I can feel that too even being at a young age and having my brain wonder when reading a text, especially when it is done online. But what makes me most frustrated is that I feel myself letting it happen, that I ask to be distracted in a way. It is sad and a powerful thing.
I do not fully agree with this. I do agree that it takes a skill and technology has changed the way we read but i dont know if it has made it impossible for us to learn. There is a sort of talents that allows us to read both in hard copy but also converting to technology. I dont think is a lack in intellect but more so.
I really liked the first sentence of this paragraph because it highlights that change is possible. My take on originality is a thought has already been thought, but how it is perceived and expressed changes. Those differently expressed thoughts can have different meaningful impacts. I find the “mortifying” “perpetual circle” hopeless and contradicting with what I thought of the first sentence. Either Emerson meant to say the first sentence in a negative way or he is employing counter arguments.
Hello, always i used to check website posts here in the early hours in the morning, since i enjoy to learn more and more.
I agree with Carr because my personal experience resonates with his description of how he distractes while he reads book. I used to concentrated on the books for at leat 30 minutes as long as I don’t have a sore back. But now it is hard for me to concentrate on the books for only two minute. This phenomenon happnes because I spend too much time on Internet and now I feel afraid of real things. The electric devices seems to deprive my reading ability and concentration. It reminds me of Birerts’ argument in The Gutenberg Elegies. He says that while during the transition from pre-electric era to digital era, there exists mang deadly symptoms. One of the symptoms is that people lost ability to distinguish themselves while was seprived of reading ability, He refers to his teahing experience on campus. Birkerts feels depressed about his students can’t understand the contents of the text. Their confusion about the printed textbooks is cause by electric devises
Carr means that although nowadays the electronic technology widespreads the range of information, people’s read habit transits from intensivelu to extensively. I kind of agree with his poinion because when I read texts on Internet, I always skip long paragraphs and I prefer seeking for shortened abstraction. This is a hidden hazard because I find that I currently feel anxious about deep reading. Also the conception pf reading intensively to extensively is borrowed from The Gurenberg Elegies.
Hi thеre would you mind stating which ƅlog platform you’re using?
I’m lookіng to start my own blog in the near futurе bսt I’m
having a tough time seelecting between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Druρal.
The reason I asҝ iss because your layout seems different
then mot ƅlogs and I’m loоking for something completely unique.
P.S Soгry for getting off-topic but I had to ask!
I agree with McLaughlin’s proposal that teachers have the ability of working with students to bring out the “hidden student intellectual” by finding methods to understand a student and engage them. I am wondering what McLaughlin would discuss about differences in educational access or students who have learning differences.
This paragraph takes a very simple concept and makes it into something much more. The use of parataxis is evident in this paragraph, as the sentences are short and choppy. However, this does not mean that Monson lacks detail in this paragraph. He is still able to describe something very simple in a complex way that even explains a deep message: that two simple things can create something more. Through candy wrappers and a purse, Monson is able to show that these two things have transformed into one thing.
Emerson discusses the power that words carry. Another person’s words can completely change the way that we think about things. When we hear other people’s thoughts and are able to shift the way that we think about things, we are given a new outlook. Though this is positive, new words can complicate things. In paragraph twenty-four, Emerson says,”and he will wonder again at his own simplicity, such tricks do fine words play with us”, meaning that listening to other people’s thoughts can make us question why we do not have the same thoughts. This can cause us to overthink and complicate our thoughts.
As the essay is titled, “self reliance” is important for us to understand. Though it is tempting to fall into a bad attitude and do things based on our feelings, we need to trust ourselves. When trusting ourselves, we have to be sure that we are in touch with our best self- not the self that makes bad decisions and fails to think important ideas through. Ultimately, this passage is telling the reader to trust their best self and rely on it. Through that, we will be guided to success.
So what is he talking about in this paragraph? Is he talking about peoples individual everyday lives or how they act among others? And the author also talks about schools how students act out during it and don’t use there argumentative talents instead to move forward in their own education. I think this talks about the consumption of knowledge one human being can acquire from certain teachings.
I see what Carr is saying in paragraph 6. Now a days it’s easier for us to get answers to different questions or definitions. Back then people used to use libraries and read through books to get an answer. In this paragraph Carr says “A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after.” I agree with this quote because that’s how easy it is today to just look something up instead of using a book and reading it to find your answer.
The way we read and think has changed because of the internet. When we read from a book we are anxious to find the answer quicker than usual. Why is this? Because we have the internet now a days to look up the answer instead of read and finding the answer. People can’t stay as focused on long pieces of writing which troubles them because then they get distracted of doze off into space and cannot get their work done.
The way we read and think has changed because of the internet. When we read from a book we are anxious to find the answer quicker than usual. Why is this? Because we have the internet now a days to look up the answer instead of read and finding the answer. The mind has changed for most people even people with a lit major in college. Scott Karp has recently stopped reading books and has just went to reading on the internet or on a computer instead. He admits he even see’s himself changing personally.
I find it interesting that Holden is embarrassed to have his classmates hear him speaking like an “intellectual” when the teacher reads his history paper. I think this reflects the stigma associated with being a scholar at school. I know many students in my high school state that they would much rather be a sports star than an accomplished scholar. The efforts made in this class to challenge what it means to be an intellectual will hopefully be effective in overcoming this stigma.
Graff’s argument seems to be a very credible and relatable one. The majority of schooling systems to this day involve strict curriculums that don’t allow students to develop their vastly different interests that they excel in. Different areas of knowledge provide people with different perspectives when pertaining to a certain subject. I agree with Graff that just because a student likes learning about sports or dinosaurs rather than mathematics or history doesn’t mean they’re less intelligent than someone else.
In this paragraph, I can relate to Carr’s strugles in it being harder today to become immersed in reading as compared to back in the day when it was easier. I am pulled in by Carr’s argument just by reading this paragraph, because I have the same problem as him and am interested in finding out what Carr’s thoughts on this problem are.
Carr really starts to get deeper into his argument in this paragraph. He claims that the easy accessibility and speed of Google and the internet is shaping our minds to think more simple than they used to. Car believes that we are letting the media and search engines like Google do our thinking for us, and that they are slowly stripping our capacity for concentration away by shortening our attention spans when it comes to searching for information. I agree with Carr’s argument in this paragraph because I find myself not having the attention span to go search for a source of literature in the library when I can just look it up really quickly on Google.
I find this very interesting because my intellectualism was also realized when I started reading Sports Illustrated and other material about sports. I remember reading a book about Tim Tebow and his journey through his sports career and I believe that was when I first realized that I could enjoy reading about sports related topics.
Carr is referring to the lack of depth on a topic a reader receives from the internet. He says “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” This quotation is furthering McLuhan’s point by saying that our information is no longer in depth, but instead we know a little detail about a lot of information.
This in an interesting paragraph because my readers are beginning to admit that they are not reading books as much as they used to. Carr also states that the Web is is making it harder for people to focus their attention on longer pieces of text. Scott Karp’s comment about the change in reading brings a valid point to the table. It is not necessarily the way people are thinking that is making them change their habits, but instead the way society is changing.
Neԝ mеmbers haνe joined tthe group and aｒｅ planning special events thrοughout
tһe town οn Marсh 5tһ frօm 5:00 to 8:00РM.
The space iѕ filled witһ hiis whimsica art, funky and fabulous jewelry аnd sumptuous handbags and textiles.
Ꮤhat inspired you to openn the Animals R Peopple 2 Etsy shop.
It seems that Monson has had it with essays and what they have, or do not have, to offer. He thinks that they are a thing of the past. I agree with him when he says that Montaigne bores him but I don’t think that essays should be judged as a whole just because of a few writers. I think that essays still hold a lot of value today.
I interpret this paragraph as Emerson telling his readers to not make a big deal about their accomplishments. If they lay low and work on their own without bringing attention to themselves, they will be more successful in life. I feel like my whole life I have always been encouraged to put myself out there and make a name for myself. I think to a degree Emerson is advising us to do this but he wants it to be in a more silent manner and less attention seeking. I think Emerson practiced this while writing his works.
This to me feels like a very metaphorical line for what the author is enduring. The origin of this passage stems from uncertainty I suppose. The author is quite impressed yet confused about his transformation. They seem to believe their upbringing would have led them down a much different path however, they ended up as an “intellectual”. Their upbringing revolves around God and his many abilities. He says earlier that the path he is on now looks to the church as if he is “one of Satan’s agents” (Paragraph 5). The hope being that something or someone would lead him down the “correct” path. Yet its shown here that even God does not know the future. The detachment from their upbringing only seems so odd because of where they came from. It is not any one decision that led them here but a collective of decision’s that when looked upon in full depth lead to the outcome now.
I can connect his paragraph with the ideas and accomplishments of Montaigne in the writing world. Monson is saying that hacking is an ingeious use of technology to reach a destination that may be impossible to reach otherwise. A bridge from one land mass to another over deep water. Although Montaine wasnt using technology, he used his ingenious mind and originality to bridge the gap between old dull essays ad modern personal essays.
In this paragraph Emerson shares his thoughts on the difference between a man who follows the crowd and a man who radiates originality. Emerson describes imitation as suicide and envy for others as ignorance. Todays world is filled with so much imitation that it is difficult to decide whether to follow the path of similar ideas or branch off into your own path that you do not see a clear ending to. In terms of business, it is the original ideas that are transformed into the most successful companies. There are uncountable amounts of companies that are merely selling a product that is mimic of the industry leader’s product. These companies can never reach the level of the industry leader. I think Emerson is saying the same thing in regards to writing and thought thinking in general.
I don’t think that being only “book smart” student has as a large of effect on school selection and job selection as many people seem to believe. When you look at the selection process of many elite schools and the statistics surrounding the selection process you see that they are looking for more well rounded students as opposed to only “book smart” students. This is also true in job selection as well and if you think about it it makes perfect sense, in the real world you need more skills than just being good at test taking . Unfortunately the education system in America today relies heavily on being a “book smart” student as opposed to a well rounded student, and unfortunately the reason behind this is that it’s hard to put a value onto other skills and abilities, then, on top of that, being able to display that value on a standard scale.
Many people seem to go agents change, this causes people to neglect many of the similarities between old and new. I believe that if you study all the aspects of the internet it offers as much or even more than books have to offer, there is no re-programming necessary to adapt to the new environment. The only necessity is being able to transcribe the skills used before in research onto the new technology of the web.
whyoah this weblog is magnificent i love studying your posts.
Stay upp the great work! You understand, a lot of individuals are
searching aroujd for this information, you can aid
them greatly.
I think Monson’s argument on the lyrical essay ties in very well with our focus on this class about philosophy, rhetoric, and poetics of the essay. His philosophy is that the essay is going downhill along with newspapers and books, but suggests that the lyric essay is an exception. Also, he thinks that the lyric essay is loosely defined and can be taken in many different directions. Furthermore, the poetics and rhetoric of these type of essays offer are engaging and refreshing. Manson goes as far to say that we should be “grateful” for this genre. I am interested in his argument on how this genre isn’t dying and what specific purposes it has in our society today.
In this paragraph, Emerson boldly draws the line between man and a man’s virtues. He argues that good deeds are just ways mankind try to balance out their sins and to make them appear to be a better person. However, he believes that there is no need to compensate for our short comings and we should accept our lives for the messes they are. To gain self-reliance, Emerson wants the reader to ignore what society thinks about them, so that they can be self reliant on their own opinion of themselves. I have trouble understanding what Emerson truly stands for. In all of his essays, he tells the reader that it is important to have a relationship with God. For example, he states, “When a man lives with God, his voice shall be as sweet as the murmur of the brook and the rustle of the corn.” (Emerson, “Self-Reliance”, paragraph 29) He contradicts his previous statements about not worrying about judgement from others by supporting a relationship with God.
Thе best part about contactjng ѕich companies іs ѡhen ʏou
require a fast һome sale,these arｅ best positioned to provide ｙou instant cash.
Ꭼven as tһe method proceeds аnd allso ｙ᧐u show а willingness tߋ behave tо forextall іt the judge ᴡill eνеn adjourn true tо offer an opportunity tοo sell your house аnd repay yօur mortgage arrears.
Оnce ɑ purchase ofder fοr sale (such ɑs a purchase fߋr possession) ⲟr ɑn оrder
forr possession iѕ obtained, a warrant foг eviction is fairly straightforward.
Growing up in an inner city neighborhood on the outskirts of Washington, D.C. and subsequently attending inner city schools, I have many memories of my middle school English teacher using street “vernacular” to engage the class with the hopes of being able to talk with (not down to) the students who were less “book smart”. I was fortunate to have grown up in a family that valued education, despite our economic standing, and pushed my younger sister and I to do well in school. I will forever remember my English teacher as somewhat of an activist. She knew the environment she was teaching in and knew that in order to help some of her students succeed, she needed to engage them first in conversation where they felt comfortable, before having us read pieces like “The Highwayman” (Noyes) or “Flowers for Algernon” (Keyes). In keeping up with fellow classmates, I have seen them cross the bridge she built between the streets and books, all because she adapted to her surroundings.
I found this paragraph particularly fascinating. We have developed the ability to scan long pieces online, but have lost the ability to read long passages in print form. I have seen this in myself as well, and it makes me uncomfortable. I used a PDF of Wollstonecraft’s “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman” when doing my last English project. I had the print form as well, but found it much harder to dive into and work through. This paragraph has made me question why digital media has changed not why I read, but HOW I read.
The “system” developed by Taylor was embraced by people in positions of power and was used to achieve the maximum potential. This makes me curious again as to the digital medium and how we use it to achieve the maximum in every aspect – speed, efficiency, and output. It can be faster to write (type) and certainly faster to print(!) digitally. I read once that we (inclusive) take more pictures in a 30 minute period than all of humanity did in the 1800s. Our outputs are drastically boosted by technology.
[Next to the originator of a good sentence is the first quoter of it. Many will read the book before one thinks of quoting a passage. As soon as Ile has done this, that line will be quoted east and west.]
Reading Emerson is like watching an intense ping-pong match. In the beginning of this essay, I was certain he was against quotation. In paragraph 3 he seems to lament that there is no longer “pure originality”, but here he holds the first quoter of a passage to the same esteem as the author.
And, of course, he’s right. Once a passage is quoted it appears everywhere: coffee mugs, Facebook timelines, dollar store picture frames… The quoter almost brings the author to life, providing an outsider (perhaps someone who will never read the work themselves) with a glimpse at who the author is stylistically.
Quotes can easily be taken out of context and given a life of their own. The phrases that remain unquoted are stagnant unless read with the rest of the work. So the quoter is, in a sense, an artist (Lethem’s essay).
I think this is Emerson’s rhetorical genius. He makes the reader believe his stance is firm and then shifts when we least expect it.
“But the man is, as it were, clapped into jail by his consciousness.”
I thought this quote was particularly linked to his essay “American Scholar” where he laments that scholars are losing the ability to think for themselves and instead rely on the thoughts and philosophies of previous authors writers (Locke, Bacon, Montaigne).
This particular paragraph is particularly philosophical as Emerson makes bold claims (most of what philosophy is based on), but it is also poetic as he compares men to boys.
Reading Dr. Hall’s “Be Destroyed”, which he qualifies as a lyrical essay, has given me pause over this blunt phrase. Dr. Hall’s essay was lyrical in that it did move in ways that were not always linear. However, the pauses served as necessary breaks in his memory. They made him more credible in my opinion. A personal essay that recounts with no hesitancy cannot be fully trusted as even the most capable human minds have gaps in memory. Dr. Hall’s use of white space was not “dead-end” and dod not merely “tack around” his subject matter. It enhanced it.
Monson’s own essay is lyrical and in the following paragraphs he goes on to defend the value of the lyric essay. His critique/praise rhetorical strategy is confusing, but effective. He is able to easily manipulate his reader into seeing two sides of a story this way.
Warner’s transformation from being an avid Christian to a queer atheist proves that intellectualism rooted by street smarts is extremely impressionable. I find this interesting because, usually, children take after their parent’s views and are blindsided to opposing viewpoints.
The author does a good job on establishing ethos within the paragraph by acknowledging Murray’s reputable credentials before quoting her. The author also does a great job connecting Murray’s quotes to their own opinions by explaining how their ideas compare.
Overall, I think the authors essay is very strong. The mentors aligned with the authors argument and evidence was accurately backed up with sufficient reasoning. However, my main critique would be proper grammar (ex. sentence 2) Checking this essay, and specifically this concluding paragraph, through Grammarly would improve this essay.
This had me scratching my head a little bit because I am still a bit confused. I can understand what is being said here from a certain standpoint and I agree with where people were coming from with street smarts undergoing a “transformation” to “join the public sphere”, but what kind of transformation are you talking about? Not to mention, if it feels like later on that students should take this side of themselves and have it expressed as some kind of intellectual not suppressed by a school’s standards then how would this “change” go about?
Also, I want to point out how relatable and in-depth this text goes into real-world issues and not to mention the references to media and media theory/theorists.
I totally agree with Graff’s argument. Also, I would like to add that most of the knowledge we get from bookish subjects is not enough for a person to socialize. Thus people who succeed in school are never guaranteed to be successful in later life. People need to do a lot of non-school learning to be a valuable part of the community.
I believe this paragraph to be particularly relatable. Many young teens are caught in the same predicament: whether to express their intellectualism while not coming across as “too smart”. Various people at this age look at intellectualism as a negative, while it should be seen a positive. It is evident in movies and television shows that the “cool” people tend to not be the smartest, whereas the “weird” people are those buried in their books. This issue was more apparent to me in middle school compared to high school and college. In the eighth grade, you were known as a “nerd” if you focused more on your studies and your grades rather than your social life. However, in my most recent years of education this argument does not seem as true. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. While in high school, the only thing I found a lot of my friends genuinely focused on was their schoolwork and getting good grades. This was so prominent that you were almost looked at negatively if you weren’t trying your hardest, something that I couldn’t have imagined in 8th grade.
Hi!
You Need Leads, Sales, Conversions, Traffic for fannelsbranch.com ? Will Findet…
I WILL SEND 5 MILLION MESSAGES VIA WEBSITE CONTACT FORM
Don’t believe me? Since you’re reading this message then you’re living proof that contact form advertising works!
We can send your ad to people via their Website Contact Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED, Contact us => lisaf2zw526@gmail.com
Regards,
Warburton
I found this paragraph to be very interested as the word “hack” is often used in our language to describe something of this sort. We hear about “life hacks'” where someone figures out an ingenious way better complete a task, and so on. This paragraph was very complete in its definition of a “hack” and for this reason, I think it should have placed closer to the beginning of the text as a whole. In all the paragraph was interesting and certainly helped to reader to understand what the author means when he says an essay is a hack.
In Paragraph 45 Graff talks adding subjects to schools such as sports or fashion because some students will find more interest in these subjects. He also brought up that it will bring their intention in but it won’t help with their public voice or help them write about the new subjects. In my opinion, if they pair the subject such as sports with English they can work on a subject that will help with their voice and writing style and they will still be interested in the subject making it a two for one deal.
I find this personal experience from Graff very interesting because I feel this type of experience is common among most people who grew up outside the city “streets”. I feel like the one main contrast between people who identify as “book smart” have somewhat already acquired that knowledge without much practice where as I believe that many people who obtain “street smarts” acquire this knowledge through their own personal experiences dealing with situations that may be presented to them when dealing with urban people in urban communities. These personal encounters allow people who don’t typically associate with those in urban communities for whatever reason to grow their knowledge of how to properly handle situations presented to them when associating with members from these communities.
The online resources such as google or other sear engines/websites allow intellectuals to search and find information at the touch of a couple buttons. This allows us to find research at a much faster rate than we used to prior before the boom in the digital age. Prior, people had to spend a lot of time finding books in libraries and carefully taking the time to read them to uncover the information they were looking for. However, this rise in media and instant gratification hurts us in the fact that it doesn’t allow people to uncover information by themselves through listening to others or reading, they simply just type their question into google and boom there’s the answer. This hurts in the fact that we have come to the point that we rely too heavily on the internet to answer our questions instead of using our brains to think.
The impact Google and the information we find on the web greatly influences our thoughts and lives as a whole. Take the news for example, people heavily rely their opinions based on the sources and information they read on the internet by various media outlets. Although, the web allows us to read and receive news stories instantly, the information we read varies based on the source causing us to believe different things much like Google search engine responses are specifically designed to respond in a particular fashion. Thus, causing the reader to often question the validity of each source.
Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It in fact used to be
a leisure account it. Look advanced to far
brought agreeable from you! However, how could we communicate?
I agree with the author that schools are known to shut down arguments and disagreements between peers. I think that being able to argue respectfully and be able to voice your opinion within the classroom can be very beneficial. I do believe students should be allowed to disagree with each other and it is not necessarily considered ‘conflict’. In the last section of this paragraph, the author mentions that conflict that is never resolved or spoke about can ultimately lead to violence. Schools must recognise that not every student will and has to agree with each other, but they should disagree in a respectful manner.
This a really good point because we always determine how successful we are in school by what grade we get in the classroom. Rather, we do not necessarily think about the fact that life is so much more than your grade in Art class, it’s being able to protect yourself or someone in a rural area. I believe that this article is directed towards a younger audience, probably a high school student who is not really enjoying high school because they are “street smart”. Why can’t schools offer classes about being “street smart” ? By doing this students confidence can rise and they would also have something to relate to in class.
This is so true because now that we have the world at our finger tips, we are more prone to spending more time online. Usually when your working, your on your computer. However, when a employee comes home from work, they usually surf the web when you come home.
Now a day, I think people just want to find the answer real quick and do not want to find out the process. Rather people try to find the answer via social media and they do not read it in a traditional sense. They are not finding out the problem via an article or even a blog post or on the news.
in the second sentence, “[…] are concerned that the transformation that is occurring in our society may even spell out the death of the book and a decline in the amount of meaningful literature being created.” The author is referencing a book but does not make it clear that he is talking about “The Gutenberg Elegies” or literal books themselves. could strengthen the idea of what Sven Birkerts argument is.
Also using the words “outraged” and “troubled” before saying the authors name draws conclusions on how the authors feel before reading the text. Could be seen was gathering a hypothesis because of an opinion. It doesn’t represent who the authors are.
I agree with this passage and feel that I can relate to what Carr is trying to point out. I find myself skimming sometimes as I read because sites like google have taught me that information needs to come quickly. For most of my life, a simple google search can give me the information I’m seeking so reading a text word for word is more difficult.
The idea of intelligence is relevant to the institution at hand. Particularly with school systems, I agree that only certain forms of intelligence are nurtured and allowed to blossom, which this paragraph suggests towards the end. Not providing a medium to convey unique forms of intelligence is quite disheartening.
“why try to turn students into clones of academics and intellectuals?”
Forcing a large, diverse, student body into learning the same subjects and intaking the same information is such a common occurrence throughout the earlier years of schooling. I personally think this course of action dampens a student’s interests and unique skills and likely discourages them from pursuing them when they have the chance. Having a choice in the courses taken and having a choice in what to learn allows my ambition to grow exponentially.
This can be related back to earlier claims on “different forms of intelligence.” The example of sports and the intelligence needed to understand it and discuss it certainly qualify as a category of intelligence, even if it is not one that would be nurtured in an intellectual environment.
This could be related back to the beginning of the text, where the author was describing how school systems put a great deal of importance on seemingly irrelevant things, and not on potentially useful skills. The two examples provided in this paragraph fit that statement perfectly.
The last statement is one that I find accurate in my personal life. I am often interested in “intellectual topics” like space, theories of life, and a wide range of other topics. To answer the question posed at the end of the paragraph; yes, it is possible, and in my opinion more natural than “intellectual speaking.” Understanding complex topics and issues should not be mutually exclusive to one being themselves.
I found this paragraph funny.
I find this paragraph the most interesting from many personal experiences. I have a very intelligent cousin who did not apply himself throughout school because he felt the learning was incompatible with his learning style. I never thought he wasn’t brilliant; instead, he wasn’t intelligent in the way the school wanted him to be. I would also argue the school is trying to teach the way the majority of kids will learn and comprehend the material. I am unsure how focused learning can become in a public school setting because I wonder how long it takes to realize the depth of someone’s intellectual “package.” I don’t see a way to overcome this challenge because schools look at the most economical way to teach many students the same material.
The connection to Marshall McLuhan is more significant to me after reading some of his works. It is nice to be able to relate to the ideas in this article with more background to form an opinion. Media does shape the way people think and not just the information being received. I think the idea of deep reading versus what reading has become today with skim reading is interesting. I don’t think McLuhan would necessarily relate to the idea of Google making us stupid, though, since I feel like McLuhan’s idea was slightly taken out of context. McLuhan didn’t even know what would come of the internet when he wrote his ideas in the 1960s and based them off only what was around him at the time. I think mentioning McLuhan and his ideas would have worked better for me if I didn’t know the context of his book.
Comment 1) I think this is a good transition sentence after pointing out that Carr may be right in some ways, but he may not be considering all aspects. I believe this is strong language since it sets up what the rest of the paragraph addresses.
Comment 2) I would revise here and put the personal experience that they are referring to since I feel it could help further their point and idea.
In today’s society, your intellectual ability has always been linked with a gpa or standardized test score. The higher these numbers were, the more intellectual you were deemed to be. The author makes an argument that has been brought up quite a few times in recent years. If you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its whole life thinking that their incapable or for the lack of a better word, “dumb”. It is important to address this issue, sooner better than later, and learn how to integrate other ways for students to demonstrate their intellectual abilities.
I think McLaughlin brings up a good point when he explains that nonacademic interests go unnoticed. Most would agree that people typically measure intellect by the grades you earn in school. If that were the case, you would have to assume that all students have the same motivation and focus to do well. Students that grow up alongside a family business or a familiar trade that they know they will pursue after school may not perform well in certain classes that they know won’t apply to their intended career. Doing so does not indicate that those students are not intellectual because they can still be experts in their given field and be able to pass down knowledge to new employees without having a recognized determination to do well in school.
I agree with Mcluhan and Carr in that technology has changed the way we think. People have become accustomed to finding new information with a click of a button. In the last sentence of this paragraph, Carr describes “Now i zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski”. He is effective at explaining how technology changes him in that he is not reading in depth anymore but browsing all the information on the web. His argument is similar to Birkets because they both agree people are not taking their time with literature and therefore limiting the amount they understand in a text.
This idea is definitely not new, I do agree, it is something that has been brought to my attention a lot – how intellect is focused only on subjects, school, academia, but intellect is seen in many cultural phenomenon. It is a special intellect to have to be well-versed in trend, ‘cult following’, and so on. It is a skill that is played down, but is still essential to our understanding of the world and our society.
This concept (neuroplasticity) is incredibly fascinating in the ways which we can completely reform our understanding because of the plasticity of the brain is an incredible adaptation, but comes with consequences. We can pick up things that aren’t true – propaganda or other falsified information. That was mentioned by a previous commenter in this section. Its an advantage and disadvantage, but is certainly fascinating. We can use it to our advantage whilst exercising caution.
The Bible, like all literature, is open to the interpretation of the reader. The many branches of Christianity exist because each branch interpreted the same scripture in a different way. Warner claims that in order to argue against the beliefs of the church one must prove that the church “misread” portions of key text. This may seem like a logical way to form a counterargument but the very same text could be used in rebuttal by the church. Arguing on the basis of varying interpretations is what caused this never-ending battle between the “believers” and “nonbeliever” in the first place. How can one find solid evidence for their argument when literature and historical pieces are so susceptible to mistranslation and personal interpretation?
I definitely believe that the quick and easy access to all information provided by the internet has “chippped away” at my ability to concentrate and contemplate. Most of the time, if I search for an article online pertaining to any given topic, if the main points are not given in a list format I immediately stop reading it. The internet provides shortcuts to information, and in return I look for shortcuts to retaining the given information.
If media and other technologies play an important role in how we read and with shaping the neural circuits in our brains, then will the generations to come be wired to read completely different than those who have had more exposure to “traditional” forms of reading? The newer generations of readers, who have been exposed to electronic reading their whole life, may adopt a completely different way of reading than we have ever seen before. Our generation is arguably a hybrid of the new and old way of reading. We have been exposed to the extensive critical reading of “traditional” fashions (to a small extent), but are also very familiar with the modern fashions of media and literacy.
This reminds me of Leopold’s land ethic which agrees with this idea of restoring local lands rather than, according to this essay, “idealizing” our own land that we live on, but often don’t do anything to help. Leopold also argues that we should be living in harmony/have a mutual relationship with nature and allow it to benefit us while we work to benefit it too. Of course, that’s what Native American people have been doing to whole time, or trying to do while being hindered by the U.S government (because it was seen as damaging/”uncivilized” behavior), which this essay was just discussing. In this way, these texts are in agreement.
By saying that street smarts “will have limited influence on the public sphere, and the gulf between the worlds of students and teachers will continue to yawn” if they don’t learn critical theory. Could we argue that getting an education helps them to be more “well-rounded” human beings?
In my case, I would like to know how to build a bridge, but I would also like to know how to cross it. Let’s say that I want to be ‘street smart’ and ‘book smart’ at the same time.
The idea that the internet is “chipping away the capacity for concentration and contemplation” makes me think of what happened when writing was invented. Were people like, “writing is taking away the capacity of memorizing hours of information”? Because that is how all of these anti-technology people sound. The medium makes us efficient. Writing is easier than memorizing. Using Google is easier than spending hours in a library.
I think that this paragraph argues that we are dependent on the internet, not that it is making us stupid. The information is still there, and we have to know what to look for. It is the efficiency of the search that has increased. And for some reason, efficiency means bad for some people.
I believe that schools are here to provide knowledge and give us tools that we can apply in the real world. As an individual you are there to learn and improve with these tools and lessons being provided to you as well as the school teaching the skills to them. But as far as intellectualism goes its the student and the schools job to bring in some insight and or further discuss these things because, its can also help students as they get older and begin to see more of the world through their own eyes and be able to understand certain aspects that may be difficult. However, as a student you’re going to have special talents and thats something you acknowledge and see first which you can later be assisted with along the way by improvement.
I believe that to an extent I can agree with this argument because, the presence of google can make someone lazy as far as trying to read intellectually and deep. Sometimes the information presented is extremely long and you just want to read to the thesis and information on why they chose that argument in particular. However, Google also has a lot of sources that encourage reading and helps the use of information become more vital for others regardless of the reasonings for needing that particular source(s).
Also, I feel like if you’re a individual who isn’t the fondest of reading as a whole google couldn’t have a negative or positive impact on your my mind and concentration to read. For example, I’m not the fondest of reading I read here and there depending on the reasonings such a school or just personal preference. If it;s for school i’ll read it but if its for personal preference it has to be something I’m really excited about or anxious to read for me to be interested in it.
This paragraph gives insight on the good values of the Net as a whole for the majority of the world using it. The information provided by the web can help you further as an author or writer in general with anything you’re trying to accomplish. They supply the information quickly and easier and its begins to help you shape your process of thinking in general which can be good and bad.
However, I think that our way of interpreting, understanding and comprehending the information depends on the person and how there brain works as an individual not by the way the internet has “impacted” it.
I found the opening paragraph to be very interesting as it provides a thought provoking hook. Not only does it begin with some background for the reader, but the diction and syntax that the writer uses is a very effective way to draw the reader in and elicit questions regarding how the piece will develop.
I find this passage interesting because each student does have their own form of potential. Sometimes, professors are rigid and limit the student’s creativity by placing strict limits on what a student can and cannot write about. I believe that often times, the ideas that spark interest in students that appear to be outside of the box could have the potential to be harnessed and molded into fine work. One of my favorite quotes that hung on the wall of my high school biology class was “If you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, it will live its entire life thinking that it is stupid.” That quote resonates in me and connects with this paragraph because it shows that everyone has their own talents, it may just take some time to uncover them. Sometimes, teachers do not take the time to uncover these underlying talents, and in turn judge their weaknesses instead of helping them find their strengths.
Here, Carr begins to introduce his argument and lay the grounds for his thesis. I understand this idea, and I feel that tit connects nicely with the ideas of Birkerts. Birkerts believes that we are just skimming over the pages, and not full unpacking it. Carr is stating that he is struggling with focusing on the text without becoming distracted within a few pages.
Here the author makes an appeal to logos by bringing statistics into his argument. This really strengthens his argument as it shows he has done research on his ideas and has found the evidence to support his claim. I agree with this information because I find myself drifting off sometimes when I am not holding an actual text in my hand.
In this paragraph, Carr is talking about how technology has changed the way we concentrate. Carr is telling his personal experience of how he can barely concentrate when reading and starts getting fidgety after three pages. I feel like if we are constantly being distracted we lose really important concepts. for example when reading Frankenstein. We had to be able to take our time and ready carefully to take in important information and take our time to connect it with other texts.
This is an interesting argument put forth by Monson. He claims that the FAQ and walkthrough of video games is as much an intellectual endeavor as any other essay and hence, must be treated with the same kind of respect. He goes on to say that the Internet is the medium for these kind of essays, just as academic journals and other intellectual media act as the medium for conventional essays.
I have a personal interest in the idea that nature is very intertwined with religion and a ‘higher power’, and is seen in a ton of environmental texts. Annie Dillard for example possessed all types of religion within Tinker–not only christian beliefs either! Jewish Kabbalism, Hasidism, Eskimo traditions, Sufism, and medieval alchemy, (at least according to Stephan Webb’s “The Extravagance of God in ‘Pilgrim at Tinker Creek'”). This questining of the natural world and its relation to the unexplainable is a common theme within many environmental works.
Often times schooling has become too centered around grades for that “hidden student” to find the urge to want to learn. I think there is a big difference between wanting to do well in school and wanting to further ones own knowledge in any given subject. Street smarts have become knowledgable outside of the academic world by choosing to immerse themselves within their own society. Although it is the job of the teacher to try and “tease out” the students inner “latent intellectual” it is also the job of the student to want that individual to be found. Grades may be the only way the school system can measure ones ability to learn but unfortunately it fails at measuring a students ability to want to learn and those are very different things and almost equally important.
For me this is one of Carr’s most persuasive paragraphs since it is so easy to relate to. I find that it is not only Google, but any major search engine, that can quickly turn to a person with ADHD’s worst nightmare. Having the ability to flash from site to site all at the click of a button is both tempting and easy. The internet feeds off the data we provide it, learning from our interests and providing us with access to all the links we probably didn’t need to click on in the first place but feel as if we’re missing out if we don’t.
Here Carr effectively compares a small benefit of technology to what he sees as a major negative. With the use of textual evidence the paragraph flows nicely from beginning to end and ultimately makes a persuasive point: technology creates distraction which disengages the vital connections that one develops when reading a book. For this particular paragraph the reader feels as though Carr does not leave out the benefits of the Internet, which are apparent, while still making a general point about a negative aspect of it.
I agree with Taylor. To me Monson is turning a word with a negative connotation to more of a beneficial approach. Here hacking is not necessarily a “cheat” but rather a previously undetectable short cut; a way to get to from Point A to Point B without any side streets. The title alone requires the reader to withdraw any preconceptions they might have with the word hack and to look at under a different scope.
In relation to what Jeremy mentioned, I believe this is because he may be seen by his family and other religious members of his community as possibly a disgrace as well as the point that many religions believe that homosexuality is a sin and therefore may believe he is confiding with the devil, especially considering his upbringing in religion. This must have been a difficult journey for him to skew away from the expectations of his family.
This point regarding exploring students’ hidden intellectual abilities made me think about the pressure put on high school students to further their education by going to college rather than exploiting their skills in certain trades that do not require a bachelor’s degree. Although education is important, some students have skills that range outside of the classroom that are disregarded and not delved into by not offering them a way to showcase their skills.
I find Graff’s point of bridging the gap between those who have more street smarts and those who are more academical intellects through “bilingualism” to be quite interesting. Specifically, his point that those who are considered street smart will be unable to make a true impact if they are unable to articulate their point in an intellectual argument. I wonder if he has specific ways that this “bilingualism” can be accomplished.
I find it interesting how Graff utilized his knowledge of sports and ability to defend his arguments relating to sports as a way to demonstrate intellectuality in a way that is not commonly considered to be “intellectual.” Often, the social stereotype of “jocks” includes characterizations of being “dumb” or “arrogant” which Graff explains is not evidently true as athletes can express intellect in different ways than the typical stereotype.
The latin meaning of this statement is “Do not seek outside yourself”. In simple terms it means “Look within yourself”. Emerson uses this statement as a realistic view of how he writes. It is seen in Emerson’s writing that he writes from within himself to make imagery possible. Being able to connect with one’s self is crucial to capturing an audience with a passionate passage. Emerson is known for his imagery and philosophy and creating this is only possible when understanding the inner you.
I don’t think google is making us stupid, however, I do think false information and scams that have infiltrated the internet are. This is overall a compelling argument but I do think there are a number of things that play into our ability to focus, such as current world issues and stressors.
He is making a good point, not everyone likes the same thing. And it is stupid to think that you can force students to learn with subject matter they don’t like. If you want a student to learn you should subjects they like, so they aren’t wasting time trying to understand a new subject but what the teachers are actually trying to teach them.
I don’t believe its the internet making you not enjoy your book. There are too many factors that could lead to you not wanting to read the book. For instance, the book really isn’t as interesting as you thought.
I don’t think Google is making us stupid, it is really allowing to show that you are wrong. Instead of living in a world of ignorance.
What does the narrator mean by consumption? I interrupted it in two ways: as a literal consumption of food, toys, technology, and the like, and as the acquisition of street smarts. Did he mean it as both, or am I just overthinking this?
I feel like the kind of “anti-intellectualism” the speaker is referring to is different from the kind of anti-intellectualism i see in today’s culture. What I view as anti-intellectualism today is the disregard for assignments, education, and literature and relevant discussion as a whole. To me, that is the kind of stuff that looks like anti-intellectualism in student culture, and I don’t see that as being an “alternative kind of intellectualism”, whereas i don’t veiw sorts as anti-intellectual so much as intertwined with intellectualism.
How old is the author of the article? Losing the ability to focus on things like long prose is the kind of phenomenon that often happens with aging. How can be know it’s the internet’s fault?
McLuhan would see the clock as a form of technology, and he’s probably agree with the concept that it “dissociated time from human events”, because that meshes well with his idea that technology changes the basic social constricts of civilization.
I have a feeling that these quotes were taken out of context. Google may have been likened to artificial intelligence, but I doubt its creators are trying to make it into one. Citations or even hyperlinks would help with this.
This quote in paragraph 57 shows for me, that education is a necessity to create great works. This is because although one may be creative, they can not learn everything they need to know through trial and error. Although trial and error is a key part of becoming the successful intellect that you may want to be, learning from others, from books, and other medias is the best way for an intellect to leave behind their own works that will make an impact in the world.
This statement is quite strong even though I think in a sense it is not entirely true. Reading may be changed to some extent by the ease of getting information without much effort online. However, this fast pace surface level skimming that Carr is referring to can be done even in an ordinary hand held book. it is basically just as easy to browse through books in your hand trying to find “quick wins” or books that will fulfill the purpose given to them by the reader. This is not something that should be blamed solely on the online access that we now have at our fingertips.
The idea that Wolf presents to us that “we are how we read” is an interesting concept that perhaps pushes an idea too far and makes it a bit less strong of a case. The idea that a different kind of thinking lies between our new found way of reading is not very far fetched. However, stating that this way of reading gives us “perhaps even a new sense of self” may be pushing the idea to its limits. Although I do agree that we put “efficiency” and “immediacy” before all else, the idea that we are “mere decoders of information” when reading online verses reading a hand held book pushes the boundaries too far. Having the internet in general may have contributed to this change but reading online compared to a book does not have the power to force us to think with “efficiency” and “immediacy”.
The intellectual abilities of students are often missed because of the the student presents themselves or accomplishes schoolwork. Every school assumes tat students work the same and learn the same, therefore the educational standard works for everyone. If schools took the time to understand the needs of students then the standard of “no kid left behind” would fare to be true. I love the way that the author of the essay takes the side of the metaphorical students, rather than saying it is their responsibility to fit into the mold of the education system.
I definitely think that being smart doesn’t have to specifically do with the classes you take in school. It’s weird to think that we are forced to take certain classes and not others. I like to think it’s to make us well rounded and to help us decide our major. But part of me thinks it’s pointless. Honestly I don’t remember much I was taught in high school. I think once you get to college it becomes more serious and your “life” and “career” sort of depend on it. There are some jobs where you need to know math and history etc.. but then there are jobs that don’t require any of that. This makes me think that street smarts are almost as important as book smarts.
He talks about how his reading habits have suffered due to technology. He talks about getting fidgety and sidetracked. I can relate because even now while reading thing article and writing this post I am on my phone texting and looking at Twitter and Instagram. I also find myself looking at Facebook and YouTube on my computer. This made me think that without technology I would finish my school work much faster and more efficiently.
I think that Birkerts would agree with Carr when he says “our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.” We, as a generation read, but do not entirely comprehend what is being placed in front of us.
When I think of hacking I don’t think of it as a good thing. Ander Monson makes me believe it’s a good thing and different then what some people believe it is. He says that when you hack something it’s a “creative activity” not something that is “illegal”. This just makes me think in a different way.
This passage caught my eye because many schools over look a students intellectual abilities. My question is how can we change this to allow a chance for some students who are overlooked by a school.
This introduction i can relate to because when i was in High School i had no problems with reading, but now that i am getting older and in college i find myself reading a book and starting to lose my strain of thought and would have to go back and reread that text to remember what i had just read.
i agree that the internet is “Chipping Away” our capacity for concentration and contemplation. Ever piece of information is now retrievable which takes away the time and effort it took before the internet to figure something out instead of just being able to look it up. Because it is so easy to research and look anything up, our minds learn to be lazy and learn to not pay attention when we put our minds to something instead of googling the answer.
I agree with this paragraph. Though the internet has provided us with a plethora of rich information, it has come with a cost. The way that we receive information has changed, but the speed at which we receive the information does not change the rate at which we process it. The mind still needs to take time to contemplate, interpret, and understand the information that is being filtered through. The mind needs time for deep and comprehensive thought, but people often find it necessary to process information as soon as they get it. The pace of the internet encourages its users to maintain that same fast pace. Thus, discouraging meaningful thought.
This is a very interesting concept. We have to teach our minds how to interpret and understand text in print. Now that the medium has changed, we will most likely end up rewiring our minds in a way that will help us keep up with the current technological advances that we face. This would literally mean changing the way we think; we would learn a new way of thinking.
This is an interesting concept. I think it is crucial to utilize and refine skills that have already been developed within an intellectual. It is common for society to overlook the talents and skills that are labeled as “street smarts.” This is unfortunate because “street smarts” could someday set apart the good from the great within this constantly changing world.
There are many practices of intellectualism that are dismissed by schools, and while I agree that these practices are important to tap into, I don’t believe it is the school’s job to tap into them. A school’s job is to teach students a variety of skills that are available to everyone and required in some way in the real world. When certain gifted students come around, it is the school’s job to teach them what they need to know, it is the student’s job to tap into these hidden talents that are overlooked.
While I agree that it may look bad, jumping from source to source, but I would argue that it is actually good and much more efficient. Before Google, you would have to read long articles to find little pieces of information to use. Now that we have Google, we can locate that information in seconds and come back to it when/if we need it. While he could argue that this is still bad because we are only getting tiny bits of information and not rounding out our knowledge of whatever subject we’re researching, I think that whether we had the extra information or not, we would still be writing the same things about the topic.
Maybe Carr just used to read easier or more interesting books when he was younger. He cannot only blame Google for his now short attention span
I absolutely love essays that address the problem within the schooling system when it comes to identifying intellectual thought. It bleeds into multiple subjects as well, such as sociology and psychology. Without reading further than this paragraph at the time of writing this comment, I have a strong idea of where Graff plans to go with his argument, but I’d like to say that the distinction between intelligence types is fascinating. Bookish-intelligence is the widely accepted intelligence, but the fact that we stigmatize other intelligence types is ridiculous to me. If school programs were more inventive in their teachings, then they could find some pretty creative ways to engage all types of intelligence in a more unified manner, instead of ostracizing the “anti-intellectuals” in favor of nurturing those that meet the widely accepted standard.
I agree with McLaughlin in his argument that we overlook vernacular and intellectual discourse working together to help an individual succeed. In the schooling system, students who are book smart are praised and considered to be “successful” while street smart students are overlooked although they may also have the same level of intellect but in a different sense. There are many examples of people who are successful today who may have dropped out of school, but they were street smart which allowed them to succeed. Although being book smart may allow an individual to succeed to some extent, in the competitive world today, being street smart is almost just as important if not more important, which is an aspect that is still overlooked by many schools and colleges.
An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a colleague
who was conducting a little homework on this. And he in fact
bought me breakfast because I stumbled upon it for him…
lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the meal!!
But yeah, thanx for spending some time to discuss this subject here
on your internet site.
Howdy great blog! Does running a blog similar tto this require a greatt deal off work?
I’ve absolutely no expertise in computer programming but I had been hopkng to start my
own blog in the near future. Anyhow, should you have any suggestions or techniques for new blo owners please share.
I understand this is off subject however I just wanted to ask.
Thanks!
I come from a place with a totally differenct education environment with American. So when I read this article I have another different feeling with people who born in American and studied here.
First of all, I’ve took history class in US and in China. Here teachers pay a lot of attention on reasearch, we need to do presentation and speech about what we find out by ourself. But in China and some other Asian country all we need to do is take notes and memories them all before test. We don’t need to understand it or know anything else relate to the topic, test is the only thing matters.
Second of all, when I first came here, I couldn’t tell how surprise I was to be able to pick courses based on myself interest. My school in China, everyone have to take the same courses doesn’t matter if it’s useful to you or if you really like it. People who can do really well on math take the same math course with people who plan to take literature as major.
So we can’t really blame on them if they can’t do well on a subject.
Thirdly, in some coutries outside of US, teachers are seemd as authority and unjudgeable. As a student we only can do what they said although some times what they said could be wrong. In the test there is only one answer anything besides that will be defined as wrong.
I see a difference between street smarts and knowledge of these different subjects and fields. Street smarts I understand to be more of a logic and knowledge of everyday life that you possess rather than knowledge about specific subjects. These subjects take time and work in order to learn about and understand just like everything else but are simply not valued equally because they don’t have the same importance in society compared to other subjects that are considered intellectual.
This is an interesting example and it goes against what the author is arguing. Just like the introduction of writing and the printing press, the internet expands humanity’s horizons of knowledge and understanding
I do not see this as possible. There is some much information out there but people focus on the information they want to hear depending on their hobbies, preferences, and wants. Nobody can know everything and this creates a limit for everyone but this limit is expanded compared to what it was before the internet due to its efficiency.
I agree with this opinion completely. Because I was not good at some subjects but very good at math and physics back high school. However I didn’t get chance to pick what I want to study. It actually effects many students confidence on study and further life.
Graff made himself clear as this point. His main argument is that street smarts can be assisting to book smarts instead of opposing each other as many assumed.
People who succeed are often not the ones sit in the classroom, instead they step out of the classroom and dedicate themselves to something that truly triggered their passion. So maybe the intellectualism did hurt many students’ interests and ability to criticize.
Given: the internet has provided us enormous information and saved us much effort from searching and filtering.
Problem: it also changed/reprogrammed our way of thinking. Instead of digging deep into texts, our ways of thinking is more likely to be “swiftly moving stream of particles.” Modern readers are like “decoder” rather than a “responder.”
The citation from scholar researches strengthens the author’s statement about the problem.
Response: the author believes deep reading is essential and we should not ignore our fading ability of reinterpretation. The more we rely on the internet, the thinner our thoughts would be reshaped by how internet operates. Paragraph 33 serves as counterargument and illustrate the author’s statement more carefully and makes it more convincing.
Adolescents are easy to be affected by parents and instructors I think. For me, I always think the words that my parents and teachers said is correct. I would like to imitate them. Also, TV shows and advertisements could lead teenage to a correct or a wrong way. I could feel that he is also a normal people, and he is a special people, too.
In my high school, students always hated some students who looked like too intelligent. Maybe those intelligent students were smart in fact, but normal students always think that they used some ways to let them look like a good student and let teachers like them. But when the event happened to me, I also wanted to show that I am an intelligent student. I don’t know if it is a vicious circle or an individualism?
Yes, it is true that Google takes more convenience for people. We can actually search something that we need quickly. But I still have a question, if Google was broken one day, what should we do? We don’t have some memory about things that we searched before, and we don’t have something collect in our room, even brain. I think we still should to read books material for search information.
When we read books, we can have some imagine in our brain. The difference between read books and watch screen is the definition for people to understand things that they search and understand themselves. Although I don’t understand well what is mental circuitry, I understand reading can help people to thinking by themselves. I t can help people to become clever!
In this passage, it shows that intelligent are compere with the sport, both are connect. If the student are good at study and study very well to find the way that how to study, then the student think that he or she will good at the sport, because they know how to find the way that good to play sport. And this is the point that the study connect with the sport.
Much like Dillard, the author brings up the concept of imbuing nature and wilderness with human moral values and culture. A potential final topic idea would be debating the moral implications of environmental topics and whether they can be applied based on the level of “human involvement.”
Not necessarily a landscape, but this reminds me of Dillard’s moments where she seems to be afraid of nature as much as she is in awe of it. A prime example of this is the chapter on parasites.
Consequently, rigging the games can be scandalous and trigger them to
lose their license.