Two Heads Are Better Than One, Rough Draft 1

This is more of a really long, involved free-writing episode than anything planned and thought-out. We've got a long way to go!


The UNESCO Institute for Education, based out of Hamburg, Germany, said, "Literacy arouses hopes, not only in society as a whole but also in the individual who is striving for fulfillment, happiness and personal benefit by learning how to read and write. Literacy... means far more than learning how to read and write... The aim is to transmit... knowledge and promote social participation." This quote backs my personal thinking on literacy. Many seem to assume that literacy is the simple ability to read and write, yet it encompasses so much more. While that is a working, everyday definition, it doesn't include the aspects that actually make up literacy, and that is the ability to UNDERSTAND and INTERPRET. UNESCO agrees that literacy is not only the ability to read and write, but that it also encompasses the ideas of indentifying, understanding, interpreting, creating, and communicating ideas not only in a written medium, but via any medium society may demand. (Wikipedia)Literacy inherently involves the assumption of "able to function". Now, granted, if you can read this, you are more than likely literate. Note the phrase, "more than likely". A child may very well be able to sit down and puzzle their way through the sounds of the words themselves, hence, "reading" this, but that doesn't make the child "literate." It makes them "able to read." In order to become truly literate, this child must be able to draw upon his knowledge quickly, and without fail, in order to be able to function as a citizen of today's society.

Throughout this class, we have puzzled our way through many interpretations of literacy, and through many thoughts concerning literacy in regard to technology. The main question seems to be, "Does technology help or hinder literacy?" As is with every debate, we seem to have split cleanly into two camps. I've yet to notice a "fuzzy" area that says, "Well, it helps here, but hinders over here." No, it's either the hell-fire and brimstone of Hedges, or the slobbering appreciation of Thompson. I find myself standing with both feet firmly planted in Thompson's camp. I have a great appreciation and need for technology in my life, and believe it helps me, and others, far more than it hinders.

I'm finding that the more time people dabble in the digital sphere, the more open they're willing to become. Public speaking is the number one fear of the average American, and when asked why, that person will often note, "I'm afraid to share my ideas. I'm afraid of being thought stupid, or judged for my thoughts." While posting something online isn't exactly public speaking in the traditional sense, it is, nonetheless, a venue for sharing one's personal thoughts, ideas, and opinions. Ever noticed that people take on a "group mentality" no matter where they are? Think about the time you spent at camp as a child. . . . When asked for volunteers, everything froze for one brief second until one brave soul raised their hand, then hands started popping up everywhere. The same holds true online. We notice others who are not afraid of the societal norms, and who are wiling to voice themselves. The more time we spend online, the braver we become. We become outspoken, opinionated, and willing to share our thoughts. Not only are we more wiling to open ourselves up for criticism, but we are far more willing to question someone else's thoughts, as well. No longer do we hide within our head, bowing down to a few strong personalities who override us with their loudness, forwardness, and strength. No, we, too have the ability to be ourselves and speak out! We are finding that we have a "niche" in this world, and that it is ours to claim!

Now, the true question is. . . . does this help us or hinder us? What makes someone a "good writer?" Is it the ability to communicate with perfect grammar? Perhaps it's the ability to capture, with photographic clarity, a visual or emotional moment in words. Perhaps, more to the point, it's simple the ability to put thoughts on paper with clarity. Now, more than ever, we are learning to share our thoughts simply and concisely. Via a medium such as Facebook, or Twitter, we write all day long. Not only do we write, but we perfect the art of writing in an extremely understandable and attention-grabbing way. Gone are the days of flowery, long, obnoxious prose, and in are the days of the haiku! Andrea Lundsford, a professor of writing and rhetoric at Stanford University, very strongly believes that technology is pushing literacy in bold new directions, and that we're "in the midst of a literary revolution." (New Literacy) She goes on to note that we college-aged students write more than ANY generation before us! Clive Thompson agrees with Ludsford that this "life writing" is helping enhance literacy. Because we are constantly catering to an audience, and attempting to better maintain their attention, we must constantly re-address and re-learn our writing style. Our statuses must be cooler than the next one, our description of the day that much more captivating, and our blog post have better and newer ideas!

Thompson's main belief centers around the fact that online writing is teaching us to address our audience in a form that teachers have never been successful in doing. Whether we are attempting to persuade a peer group towards a particular pizza joint, or we're addressing societal issues on an online forum, we adapt in a fashion that academic writing precludes. Academic writing takes on a life of it's own, especially in relation to the "liveliness" of the online sphere. With our new-found ability to examine, process, and expound upon other's ideas, we become more able, and more willing, to put our own thoughts out for examination. In the National Forensics League, there's a saying that abounds during tournaments. "Your only goal is to convince the judge. If your judge is a moron, then you've gotta learn how to convince a moron." Our constant give and take of information online teaches us how to do just that.

I have thus far addressed writing, but have yet to touch reading. There's a reason for that. . . . I'm not exactly sure what to say. It stands to reason that if we're writing more, we're reading more, too. However, we're not reading nearly as "in depth" as we once were. We constantly scan and "fish" for new information. As Carr beautifully noted , "Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski." He couldn't have said it any better. Years past, when one wanted information, one had to go on a deep sea exploration mission. Now, any conceivable bit of information is shimmering on the surface, there for the taking, and for the finding. Not only that, but it is CONSTANTLY being expounded and added to by our brave, literate minions, just waiting to take over the world! *evil laugh* Ok, so I'm totally kidding there. . . . but the information super-high IS molding the way we expect to find information. The more we dabble, the more impatient we become. I wanted my information, and I wanted it YESTERDAY, darn it! Since we are learning to express ourselves shortly and succinctly, we are also allowing our thoughts to follow the same pattern. We want things to get to the point, quickly and without error. Don't bother me with all that background and superfluous jazz. . . . just tell me what I need to know, in one sentence, and starting with a being verb. Carr worries that we are becoming stupid because of this new-found need for brevity. I disagree. We are functioning on just as a high a level as we were BEFORE the net, but we are functioning under a whole new skill base. No longer do we have to dig and sweat and strain to find our information, nor to share it. No, it's a simple matter to have it served on a silver platter, and that is what we've come to expect. We're not stupid; we're spoiled.

Long story short, what kind of readers and writers have we become? The answer is easy. . . . different ones. We're no longer the prosaic lawyers of years past, and we're no longer willing to go on deep-sea expeditions when we can find bigger and better fish "zipping along the surface." (Carr) An old saying says, "Two heads are better than one", and when it comes to the communication of ideas and thoughts, that couldn't be more true. The more we expound and share our ideas and thoughts, the more willing we are to put ourselves out. The internet provides us with the perfect medium to learn and grow, and without it, our ability to adapt to varying factions of society would definitely be stunted.

Essay Prompt

So I am totally sick of pulling this prompt up in Microsoft Word, and so, I'm going to post it here.

Essay Rationale
The writers we have read offer varying approaches to literacy concerns in a digital age. You have read and responded to these texts on the web and in class. You and your classmates have also conducted limited personal research of your own web practices. This essay provides an occasion for you to draw upon that all of that work in addressing the relationship between the digital age and literacy practices. This essay serves as the culmination for our work in this unit, as a chance to pull all of these ideas together in writing.


Essay Prompt
Address this question: What kinds of readers and writers are we becoming as we read and write on the web? You may consider your response as taking positions relative those of Sullivan, Harris, Carr, Hedges, and Thompson on the personal and civic implications of internet reading and writing. (You do not have to include all of these sources, but you are expected to include some of them.) You also should include at least one source outside of those you read for class. You are free to draw upon personal experiences and reflections in this essay, and you may revisit and revise your blogs posts to contribute to your response. I encourage you to try to have fun with this essay and to focus upon interesting questions rather than easy answers.

Emotional Intelligence and the Internet

I haven't yet had a chance to read this article, but it looks thoroughly intriguing. I seems to be about how excessive use of the internet and cell phones stints emotional development.

My Awesome Article I Found This Morning

*grins* Such an original name. . . . . I am in DIRE need of some coffee. . . .

Facebook

Hey, I noticed that we all had Facebook profiles, and that we were all quite active. I'm just tossing this out. . . . anyone who wants to add me can find me under Cortney George.

Last Day

"Against the grain should be a way of life. . . .
What's worth the price is always worth the fight"

These words from a song called "If Today Were Your Last Day" by Nickelback sum up my thoughts concerning blogging. Ever since I began blogging, I've noticed subtle shifts in my thought patterns. I've sought out controversy, and I've sought a means to expound, to process, to add to it. I've been more apt to share my own opinion, and to be willing to stand behind it. While I will, at times, allow my emotion to override my logic, I've learned much about myself, my classmates, and the world via blogging. The ability to share my thoughts without fear of repercussion (hence, against the grain) is a huge plus for me. Somewhat like a patriot in a sea of normality, bloggers often seek a venue to share their radical ideas. . . . . for the ideas often are quite different. It's been said that if you ask a room full of 10 people about one thing, you'll get 11 answers. That's never more true than with blogging. All 14 of us read the same articles, yet we come up with interpretations from all angles. That free-form aspect of blogging is one that I've come to love. Now, with traditional blogging, I find nothing challenging, really. In this particular blog, Chris Hedge definitely tried my patience. Although, if I get into the nitty-gritty details of it. . . . even that wasn't all that trying, simply expounding. I learned much about the different viewpoints and factions concerning the internet and intellectual spheres of America. I find myself delving a bit deeper into the academic side of the internet, if only to dabble a bit in thoughts other than my own. On the basest level, though, my true habits haven't changed much, if at all, beyond seeking out a bit more in the realm of theoretical knowledge. I have definitely gained an appreciation for spell-binding writing, for it is much easier to process and expound on writing that is well-thought-out and interesting. My recognition of the shortness of the number 250 also intrigues me. I knew that 250 wasn't all that much. . . . but neither did I regularly expect my posts to hit the 800 word mark! I suppose that I'm a rambler by nature. So. . . . . fellow classmates. . . . . intellectuals. . . .literates. . . . bloggers. . . . . consider the thought that you know have a venue with which to comment on, and view the world. . . . . and that it is your right to go against the grain. What will you do with it?

And the War Begins. . . .

I am obligated to start this post by announcing my personal bias. I do not like Chris Hedge. I ROYALLY do not like Chris Hedge, nor his writing style. His pessimistic, elitist tone annoys me like nothing else in an academic setting ever has. When I saw his name crop up in connection to this assignment, my first thought was, "Oh, no, not again. . . ." I, however, resolved to keep an open mind and attempt to analyze his writing separate of him. However, I failed. His choice of propogandic writing leaped out at me once again. With words chosen to elicit emotion where none was necessary (such as "largely parasites" and "blood on the floor") and the direct attacks on internet news casting, he has once again spewed his cynical opinions, for I am loathe to call it "knowledge".

However, Hedge's basic personal view is as follows: Newspapers, apparently, provide unbiased opinions on what goes on, day to day, in a city, county, or country. People of these locals, apparently, are not smart enough to think for themselves and form their OWN opinions without the help of a newspaper. ("They provide, at their best, the means for citizens to examine themselves, to ferret out lies and the abuse of power by elected officials and corrupt businesses, to give a voice to those who would, without the press, have no voice, and to follow, in ways a private citizen cannot, the daily workings of local, state and federal government.") People also, apparently, cannot get an unbiased view of the places beyond the American border. . . . He states, and I quote, "Reporters and photographers showed Americans how the world beyond our borders looked, thought and believed. Most of this is vanishing or has vanished. " He then goes on to note that the internet is not going to replace REAL newspapers. No, it's just not good enough. . . . . He blames the news producers for not knowing how to use the internet, and then he calls them paranoid. As I recall, when we, as a class, did an evaluation of our internet habits, nearly all of us turned to an online venue to seek out the news. We did not find "Cult Maker International" or "mybiasedview.com", but, instead, we turned to well-known online newspapers. Hedge notes that these websites bring in little revenue, but, nonetheless, they are newspapers. . . . . The venue and opportunity for reporting remains the same. He further solidifies his darkness by informing his readers that the American public lives under a "happy illusion that we can transfer news-gathering to the Internet." Newsflash, Hedges!!!! The internet does not gather. . . . . the people, working for the newspapers with websites, POST the information. . . . the opportunity for gathering remains the same!

Hedges is attempting to instill some kind of mass panic by stating that bloggers are replacing reporters. It just isn't so, people! The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and hundreds more newspapers function beautifully, still! If reporters WERE being replaced by bloggers, then I would be quite fearful over much of what I read. But, at this point in time, his views are nothing more than a conspiracy theory, and while he's welcome to his opinion, he's also welcome to be wrong.

I enjoyed Thompson's piece quite a bit more, both for the simplistic presenting of ideas, and for the back-up it came with. He had an idea; he found someone who did REAL research to back it up; he presented it. End of story. However, his back-up IS a bit limited. . . . . it was drawn from one school.

Before reading this article, I had never considered how much I truly write via texting, Twittering, and status updates. I have learned a new skill via Facebook, and that is summarize any activity, emotion, feeling, or thought in a single sentence, often using the a "being" set-up! (Keagen is. . . . ) Because of the new push of technology, we have learned to approach writing in an entirely different way, and that is from the standpoint of writing being moment to moment, day to day. We constantly change our status, twitter our activities, and text 10 people at once. We can drive our lives forward with a concision like no other generation, and we have the internet to thank for it.

Compare Thompson and Hedges??? From my standpoint, there is NO comparison. There is not a comparison in writing style, in ideas, in tone, in nothing. However, they both seem to have a wonderful grasp of the English language. . . . The two of them have a squaring off of ideas, at best. . . . and when we throw Sullivan and Carr into the mix, we REALLY have a brawl on our hands. These two factions split and stare at each other over a gulf of words. . . . The ideas war with a brutality like no other academic battle has. . . . Is the internet making us stupid, or is it teaching us merely to think and process differently? That, my friends, is the ultimate question. . . . where do you stand?

I realize that I have allowed my serious dislike of Hedges to overshadow much of this post with an antagonism and passive aggressiveness that is probably sickening to many of you. I apologize for the overtone, but not for the feeling.

All That's Gold Doesn't Glitter

The feelings of outrage, disgust, and contempt rolled through my body as I read and processed this article. While it was very well written, I do NOT agree with the message, at all. The same disgust and revulsion that I feel when faced with modern-day racism hit stronger and stronger the deeper I dove into the assigned reading. While this is not racism in the traditional sense, it is discrimination and segregation of a different sort. I felt fiercely protective of those that Hedge directly attacks, and that, my friends, is exactly what this was. . . . an attack. He shears America into two parts, and he labels one very clearly as "inferior." He notes that they "remain powerless" and remarks that they "watch helplessly and without comprehension." Words such as that applied to my fellow country men just absolutely and totally rub me the wrong way. The gall! Hedge appears to sit on a pedestal, looking down his nose at those he considers beneath him. There's not one quote I can pull out to say, "See! That's what he SAID!" It's an overwhelming tone of superiority and haughtiness through the article from which I draw my feelings. While I don't find much of his article confusing, at all, I find most, if not all of it, troubling. While I do find it troubling that I have fellow country men struggling to read, I find it more troubling that Hedge looks down on them the way he does. There once was a time when NO ONE could read, and society functioned just fine. Reading is not a requirement for life, liberty, or happiness, nor does it make one a lesser mammal if one cannot read. *supremely frustrated* The more I consider this article, the angrier I get. The first paragraph of the article sets the tone for the entire set-up.

"We live in two Americas. One America, now the minority, functions in a print- based, literate world. It can cope with complexity and has the intellectual tools to separate illusion from truth. The other America, which constitutes the majority, exists in a non-reality-based belief system. This America, dependent on skillfully manipulated images for information, has severed itself from the literate, print-based culture. It cannot differentiate between lies and truth. It is informed by simplistic, childish narratives and clichés. It is thrown into confusion by ambiguity, nuance and self-reflection. This divide, more than race, class or gender, more than rural or urban, believer or nonbeliever, red state or blue state, has split the country into radically distinct, unbridgeable and antagonistic entities."

There is so much raw superiority in that paragraph alone to choke an elephant. I know that at this point, I sound like a broken record, and as such, I will move on. I just cannot get pass the absolutely disgusting, overwhelming, simpering sense of power Hedge gives off. . . . . While his article focuses on "literacy", the man never bothers to define it. Overall, he seems to fall on the broader sense of "understanding", as opposed to the traditional, narrower definition of "able to read." He cites a ton of statistics stating who can and cannot read, and then goes on to discuss deeper thinking that is apparently supposed to be connected to the idea of literacy. He can't just end it with, "These people can't read." No, he has to go on to actually insult their intelligence, as if reading was a measurement of intelligence. . . .

Hedge and Carr share few, if any, characteristics. The two of them are two opposite ends of the spectrum. While Hedge has a right to his opinion, he is very offensive in the way he presents. Carr offers his opinion, allows that there might be error, and is almost submissive in his expression. Hedge directly attacks the population, whereas Carr simply offers his ideas up for examination. Hedge is the elitist, and Carr is a member of every day people with a thought to share. Even the topics vary, even though, at first glace, they appear similar. "America the Illiterate" and "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" seem to follow the same subject line, but we've always been told, "Don't judge a book by its cover." These two diverge in tone, subject, and intent within the first sentence. While I didn't particularly like either of them, Hedge gave a me a new appreciation for the humbler side of humanity, and Carr gave me an appreciation for those with support. As always, there's something to be learned from everything. . . . and perhaps the oldest lesson of all was driven home. . . . . all that's gold doesn't glitter. . . . In specific terms, reading isn't the end all of the elite. . . . .