Literacy and the Internet in America

Ben Fuerst     

Eric Leake

Writ 1022

Monday, January 30^th

            In Stefanie Olsen’s article “Intelligence In the Internet Age” she quotes Doug Engelbart, a pioneer in computers and the Internet. He once said, "The key thing about all the world's big problems is that they have to be dealt with collectively, if we don't get collectively smarter, we're doomed." The entirety of the article is Stefanie discussing the benefits of the Internet, and how it is valuable to people as a whole rather than an undesirable invention. People make the Internet out to be this living entity draining the knowledge from individuals and bringing about negative literary habits. I am writing this to show my point of view regarding the upside to the Internet.

            Furthermore, in the article Stefanie uses anecdotes to relate that intelligence involves memory, and that humans have vastly expanded their memory with use of smart technology via Internet. Dictionary.com deems that Intelligence is, “ones capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.” Therefore, with the introduction of the Internet we have exponentially expanded people’s abilities to become more intelligent. While there are many who doubt people’s intelligence because of low SAT, ACT and other IQ tests, those do not necessarily prove general intelligence. Perfect examples of why the Internet is increasing our “memory” is that you may forget people’s address, directions and how to get there. But with the Internet you receive all of this information allowing for your brain to retain more valuable information that may not be found on the Internet.  It is almost impossible that the Internet is an invaluable tool with which we store nearly every iota of the world’s valuable information now. If you agree with that statement than it is hard to ignore the truth that with an expanded form of memory we too as humans expand our overall capacity for intelligence.

            Moreover, an even more heated debate between pro and anti Internet users is the question of overall literacy.  People question whether or not the general literacy of my generation is increasing or decreasing due to the Internet. In Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” he writes, “Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy…. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.” He goes on to site various other blogger/authors and their current struggle with focusing on reading lengthy novels. To me this accusation that the Internet is the wrongdoer is ludicrous. Carr claimed that Google is making us stupid, because it is reducing our attention span. Did he ever think of the counter argument that his fluid intelligence is decreasing due to a lack of stimulation as his age increased. There are further arguments that because he is now constantly blogging, he is doing less reading.  You cannot base your reasoning solely off of one’s own opinion without backing it up. Simply because he and other bloggers get distracted while reading, they cannot say everyone else’s literary skills are impacted by the Internet. Carr claims that the Internet is “rewiring” himself as well as us, initially claiming that it is a negative, only eventually does he say, “Yet, for all that’s been written about the Net, there’s been little consideration of how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us. The Net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure.” This argument is contradictory to his entire article. Furthermore, the Internet is neither bad nor good. It is a tool, and like many tools, it is both helpful and destructive. However, the Internet is not making us dumber, generally it is enhancing our literacy. It adds to our traditional writing and reading methods as well as providing newer methods, making us generally more intelligent.

            Additionally, the claim that the Internet is a crutch adding to the illiteracy in America is not only one of the boldest claims ever, it is possibly the most stupid one as well. In Hedges’s article “America the Illiterate” he puts forth many left wing ideals that the general public is overwhelmed, poor, and therefore, illiterate. He uses “facts” and statistics without a general citation or source. He believes that nearly 1/3 of the nation is barely or completely illiterate. He believes that we are worse off in this generation than ever before. He claims that the “illiterate rarely vote” and that those who do, cannot make decisions off of text. Today, both older generations and mine are more literate in a general sense than ever before. They might not be on a higher academic level like studies would hope them to be, however, they are well enough equipped to read a text, blog, or a status on Facebook, unlike in the past where they might not be able to read period. He goes on later to attack the public schools; the claim that the illiterate of the United States can find blame in the schools and faculty is asinine. Grant it, not all teachers are superstars or truly believe in the mission of bettering the students, the blame falls to the parents and more importantly the work ethic of the children. Additionally, Hedges’s goes on to quote the speaking capacity of past presidential candidates versus current ones. His belief is that we as Americans are truly diminishing in our capacity to read, write, and speak. However, this is yet another flawed argument on his part. Just because Abraham Lincoln may be scored higher than Ronal Reagan or George Bush Sr. it doesn’t mean that they are less intelligent. It could be quite the opposite. Maybe they were scored higher than modern men, simply because they were more intelligent than nearly everyone at the time, where as now our candidates are on the same level as many others. Moreover, as a society were are currently placing less value on traditional writing which is true. However, we are not putting any less emphasis on reading and writing than before. A perfect example of this is that we are evolving, for instance taking classes that focus on blog writing over a traditional five-paragraph essay. On that note, the idea that writing is evolving is a very valid belief.

            In Clive Thompson’s article he goes on to describe the idea that Writing, as we know it as well as literacy is evolving. All living things evolve over time. Reading and writing are both living things, they are a collective unconscious of our ideas, thoughts, and experiences formed into concise forms. Therefore, why can these methods that we use to express ourselves and formulate ideas not evolve along with us. Thompson follows Andrea Lunsford a Stanford professor’s study. In the study Lunsford samples 14,672 pieces of writing like texts, blogs, and academic essays. With these samples she concluded, “"I think we're in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven't seen since Greek civilization," she says. For Lunsford, technology isn't killing our ability to write. It's reviving it.” While authors like Carr and Hedges’s would disagree with these findings, it is hard to argue with a professor of writing and rhetoric at Stanford that our methods of writing and reading are changing, yet Lunsford seems to believe the change is a positive one like I have been arguing for. Sending someone a letter was almost normal about 15 years ago. Then widespread use of cellphones, followed by emails, and texts ended the need for such passé forms of communication. We have reached a new age where facebook, twitter, and texting have become the mainstream form of communicating with others. Therefore, the idea that our literacy methods are evolving is not so crazy.

            In conclusion, I believe that our literacy practices have been revolutionized by the introduction of new means of writing via the Internet. There are too many positives to list, and very few negatives to me. The positives are things like easy access to all sorts of readings with which we can better ourselves, both via literacy overall and a way to expand our knowledge of nearly everything. With the whole world opened up to us we are becoming more intelligent in mass, previously you only knew what was around you in your own “world.” The negatives to some are reduced attention span, or a lack of interest in classical reading. However, you cannot generalize to everyone what a few contradictory bloggers write. They claim that Google is bad and that the Internet is ruining books, yet they themselves are writing blogs for a job. Aristotle once said, “Change in all things is sweet.” It is hard to argue with the sound logic of the great Aristotle, even more so when change comes naturally to the human race.

Works Cited

·      Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. July-Aug. 2008. Web. 29 Jan. 2012. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/>.

·      Famous Quotes at BrainyQuote. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. <http://www.brainyquote.com/>.

·      Hedges, Chris. "America the Illiterate." Truthdig. 10 Nov. 2008. Web. 29 Jan. 2012. <http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081110_america_the_illiterate/>.

·      Thompson, Clive. "Clive Thompson on the New Literacy." Wired.com. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. <http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-09/st_thompson>

Overview of Recent Blogs

            As I look back upon the past blogs that I have sat down and written, I realize that blogging wasn’t as strange as I thought it would be.

To me the most difficult aspects of writing one, was not only reading occasionally lengthy articles, but also sharing my beliefs and feelings in a somewhat open forum. That is not to say that I am shy, just wary of mistakes I could have made, therefore, allowing others to see them.            

The most interesting posts to me would have to be the last three blogs. I quickly came to despise the writings of Hedges’s and Carr’s writings. I am not necessarily a conservative, but when liberal’s spout “knowledge” and “facts” It starts to bother me. Conservatives do similar things, but when a writer lists off statistics that have no backing it makes me question the writer’s motives. Therefore, writing a response blog to their articles allowed for me to express my overall dislike of both authors. Finally the last blog allowed for me to compare writers who were neither liberal nor conservative simply authors with a valid point, to authors who seemed to have a political agenda/bias.

Furthermore, my overall attitude towards reading and writing has not really changed. I have always loved readings novels; however, writing while I like to think I am proficient at being creative and writing a good essay, though while not being the best editor, has not changed. I won’t try to continue on with blogs or essays unless required to.

Revolution of Writing or Regression?

In Clive Thompson’s article about writing and my generation, he asks the question about whether or not our generation is worse off because of texting, blogs, and the Internet. To help with his theory that we are better off, he quotes the findings from Andrea Lunsford, a Stanford Professor. In her 5 year long study using nearly 14,672 samples of writing ranging from texts to formal essays, Thompson concludes, “For Lunsford, technology isn't killing our ability to write. It's reviving it—and pushing our literacy in bold new directions.” Furthermore, Lunsford believes that this is the biggest revolution in writing since the ancient Greeks.

            Not only does Thompson and Lunsford believe this is a new age of writing, in a positive way, Sylvia Scriber begins her article with, “Although literacy is a problem of pressing national concern, we have yet to discover or set its boundaries.” She believes that writing does not need to be strict or straightforward. She believes it is ambiguous. She writes that writing is a “Social” achievement; therefore, it needs to be shared between people like through blogs, texts, and tweets. Not dusty old thesis’s disproving why frogs and toads are different.

            Furthermore, while both Scribner and Thompson agree on the limitless bounds of writing, both also agree that is both social writing like texts and blogs are of equal importance to school essays. However, it isn’t the schools job to enforce the necessity of writing, because we do it each day regardless if we want to but to reinforce certain aspects of “good” writing, like grammar, and structure.

            In comparison to both of these articles, last weeks articles by Hedge’s and Carr were of the opposite belief. They both believed as we delve further into this era of technology and the Internet we will lose all forms of “good” writing, and they argued we were less literate than previous years.

            In my mind, I agree that we are losing “good” writing like literary essay’s, classical novels, and older forms of text. However, that is not to say that we are any less literate or intelligent for using our new forms of writing like texts and blogs. I agree that this is a new age or writing, but proper writing should still be used and taught to students, so that it is not lost to time and history for future generations.

America, Just as Literate as 133 Other Nations.

In Chris Hedges’s article, “America the Illiterate” he claims that as a whole, our nation is becoming more illiterate. The first issue I take with the article is where did Hedges gather his literacy rates? It is impossible to gauge the real rates accurately but at the same time there are two sides to every story. A liberal newspaper will post lower literacy rates to make us more apathetic to the plight of the unfortunate. A conservative paper would say we have high literacy rates. There is no way to say exactly which it is though. As a whole the idea that because certain percentages of our nation received only a high school diploma means they are less literate means nothing. There are college kids who may be less literate than someone who received no diplomas.

            While I understand people are less apt to reading than previous generations, it doesn’t make them any less illiterate. It would make sense that most illiterate people do not vote, because they may not be capable of reading news articles, however, to say that political candidates are focusing their campaigns on that specific group is ludicrous. They may use media to get there point across, but simply because it is the easiest most affective method. If one political candidate were to post his ideals, beliefs, and reasons for his eventual candidacy on websites solely versus the normal campaign methods, he/she would never be heard of.

            Finally, the discussion about the Princeton Reviews findings on the debates on late 1900’s candidates versus ones like Douglas and Lincoln, are absurd. The scoring system is completely biased, as is the idea that because those men spoke on a more intellectual level, they were more literate. Those men spoke the way they did regardless if people would understand the message they sought to express. The only reason current political candidates may be scored on a lower level because they are trying to appeal to an entire population of people, from 18 year olds to people in there 80’s. 

Google, Enhancing One's Ability to Learn...

In Carr’s article, he attempts to answer the question about whether or not Google is making us more stupid as a generation. While there is no definite way to prove this hypothesis, it poses a real question all the same. Who can say whether my generation is “dumber” due to Google and the quickness/simplicity of the Internet, versus previous generations less accustomed to such technology.

            Carr quotes one blog writer Scott Karp who reads exclusively blogs, and no longer books. Who is to say that proves anything? The man is a blogger; therefore, he devotes most of his time to reading blogs and not hardcopy books. Another blogger only skims readings, and cant focus on longer pieces. None of this to me is conclusive. These men are bloggers first than avid readers second. Their job is to absorb as much info as quickly as possible so they can repost newer updates or ideas.

            To me Carr’s anecdotes and ramblings about Nietzsche and his failing sight, typewriters, and theoretical computers do nothing to add to his argument. While our attention span may be tuned down due to instant gratification that the Internet offers, my generation is no less intelligent than previous one’s. If anything our generation is more intelligent due to the accessibility of Google and all that the search engine ideal has to offer.

            After discussing our browsing habits, our class shows a general like and interest in news. It helps to broaden our basic knowledge of the world, allows for the pursuit of ones interests in the world, like history, music, or science. As a whole the Internet and Google help us to become more intelligent.

Tale of Two Writers- The Blogger and the Author

In Joseph Harris’s book, Rewriting, he discusses the idea of Intertexuality, in which academics are constantly writing in response to other’s works. Not writing one’s own stories, novels, or essays. The purpose of an intellectual should be to push and ask questions of what has been said or written. Similarly, Andrew Sullivan finds that blogging should not just be some boring post, but something deeper, something with meaning that stirs a debate, or discusses a controversy.

            Likewise, both Sullivan and Harris find that their form of media, whether written word or blogs should stray from the path of the essay format with thesis and opening sentences. Rather, writing should be a fluid motion, like Harris writes, “As part of a game or dance or performance or conversation.”

            On another note Harris not only preaches about the flow of writing like a conversation, but practices it as well which is clearly shown in his book. The entire thing feels like a blog or conversation.

Furthermore, Harris’s idea of people constantly dealing with words and how we need to relate it not only to our own language but our own perspectives shows that the old method of structuralized writing is no longer as important as things like blogs which help people better understand writing, and allow for easier methods of reading.

The Internet: Fun and Useful (Mostly Fun)

As I read over my classmate’s blogs about their Internet habits I realized many things, similar and dissimilar to myself. Not only does my generation love their entertainment like Facebook, Stumbleupon, and Addictnggames but also in a more general sense I gather that the Internet is no longer something that can be ignored.

            For the last decade or so the Internet was relatively new and was still capable of being ignored by many. Today that is not the case, judging from the class not only do we receive constant email updates whether it is on our phone, but news is a constant stream as well fed to us through sites like Yahoo, MSN, and more reputable sites like the New York Times. Most of the students as well as myself are constantly reading new stories on the web, from the most up to date sports news to the trapped vacationers aboard the Italian cruise ship.

            Furthermore, we all are doing our own writing on the Internet, whether it is on Facebook, or through our texts on phones. Our generation varies greatly from the older generations like our parents who predominantly see the Internet as a tool and not a form of media entertainment. Some students see the new technology similarly, however, I believe it is something to be enjoyed as well as used for more important purposes.