Final Essay

Kyra Mitchell

Red ID: 817773678

Werry

RWS 100, 11 am

15 December 2014

The Positive and the Negative of the Internet

            The relatively new invention of the Internet has brought about many new ways to go about reading and writing. The Internet contains so many resources to write and learn, and to share ideas. The use of social media, blogs and email has drastically increased writing in an every day setting. Along with any chance in society, there is a debate as to whether the use of the Internet is good and beneficial or bad and harming. Many people have responded to this pressing conflict including Clive Thompson with “Public Thinking” and Nicholas Carr with “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Thompson takes the approach that the Internet is in fact improving society’s writing and reading capabilities. Where as Carr argues that the Internet is overall hurting society and changing the mindset of society in a harmful way. I agree with points that were made by both authors, but overall I agree with Carr that overall the Internet is harming to society, and hindering to the way we read and write. I was born when computers and the Internet were just starting to become popular, and now they are at an all time high with Internet in cell phones and on portable devices that can be accessed anywhere, in a moving car, even on an airplane. Seeing society chance and the impact it has on my life will help me present my own idea on how Internet is changing our ways of thinking, how new technology is creating a pathway to the mindset that quicker and more efficient is better, in addition to other texts that will help support and contradict my view.

            The Internet has brought many new technological advances with it, but we cannot ignore the negative side effects that come along with this new technology. In 2008 a writer named Nicholas Carr responded to this issue by writing an article in The Atlantic called “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” In the article Carr uses personal experiences, and  scientific research, to help make his argument effective, and relatable. Carr addresses how the use of the Internet has slowly disintegrated our use of cognitive functions in everyday activities, and worsened our reading and writing skills. Carr mainly talks about the effect the Internet has on our decline of concentration. The Internet has a lot of pop ups and adds and switching from screen to screen has weakened our minds along with our concentration levels. Carr believes that people have become too reliant on the Internet to the point that it is obstructing the abilities to let the brain evolve. Carr goes on to say, “The Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mouth” (Course Reader, 59). Carr here explains that the Internet is a useful recourse, and very convenient for finding information, but it is also that the information is persuading us and making us think differently. Carr quotes a media theorist Marshall McLuhan, who explained “media are not just passive channels of information. They supply thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the net seems to be doing is chipping away at my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles” (Course Reader, 5). Carr takes a new approach to the internet, saying yes it can be beneficial, but the constant everyday use of it, the role it plays in society, has worsened the effects it has on the brain.

             In the contrast, Clive Thompson wrote a chapter, “Public Thinking” in the book Smarter Thank You Think, addressing the benefits the Internet provides for writing. One main attribute the Internet has provided is a place for everyday writing that can be shared around the world, to anyone who wants to partake. According to Thompson, the increase in writing due to digital technology and the Internet has helped clarify thinking, generate ideas, increase writing skills and improve memory. Due to things like the audience effect it has caused writers to care more about their work and focus more time on improving their writing even if it is something as simple as a blog, the fact that others could be reading it, has greatly effected the way people write everyday. Thompson quotes a poet Cecil Day-Lewis on the effects the Internet have had on her, ““I do not sit down at my desk to put into verse something that is already clear in my mind. If it were clear in my mind, I should have no incentive or need to write about it. We do not write in order to be understood; we write in order to be understand” (Course Reader, 51). De-Lewis explains how writing can help her generate her thoughts, to help make sense of what she is thinking or feeling. This mass increase of writing has helped connect people around the world that would have never been able to connect before. Research being conducted, others are finding out about and offering their help. Oppressed people in conflicting countries are spreading the word about the oppression and having a voice for democracy that before were never heard. This is the benefit to the change that has occurred in society sue to the role the Internet and social media have in todays society.

            I have grown up in the middle of this new vast age of the Internet. In my time social media has taken off, and played such a strong role in many peoples lived especially that of the younger generations. For me, I have gone from carrying text books to class to the only thing I needed in school was a laptop. All my books are now found online for cheaper or even sometimes for no cost compared to the raising prices of textbooks, also compared with the advantages of not having to carry around heavy textbooks and having everything all in one device, the convenience is a perfect, it creates an environment for faster more efficient learning, which is what these electronic companies want you to think. But in reality it is a set up for disaster. Being on an electronic device all day, looking at a bright screen constantly creates poor concentration, along with procrastination. Being able to text your friends, look up funny videos, do online shopping, none of that can be ignore on a computer, it is constantly popping up distracting one from learning and focusing on finishing. I believe there is truth behind both Carr and Thompson’s views on the Internet, and the arguments made. Thompson makes an excellent point saying that the information provided by the Internet is information that would never be able to be accessed otherwise. The connections and recourses found on the Internet are very useful for learning and writing. That being said, Carr’s view on the negative effects of using the Internet cannot be ignored. Carr discusses how the Internet has created a decline in our everyday cognitive functions, discusses mainly how the Internet has deteriorated our mind and our level of concentration.

            When connecting Carr and Thompson’s views a pattern can be made. Thompsons main claim is that the Internet is a great resource for writing, where as Carr mainly focuses on the negative effects of reading on the Internet. I think an understanding can be made between both that the Internet can be a good resource as long as it is not over used. A lot of these observations are on the over sure of technology and the Internet. In today’s society it is easy to get caught up in electronics, but the everyday constant use of them is causing the poor concentration and lack of focus Carr argues about. Overall the use of the Internet can be very resourceful if used in moderation, just remember with every new change there is always a drawback.

           

             

Why Abundance is Good: A Reply to Nick Carr

Kasey Cura and Kyra Mitchell

RWS

Werry

18 November 2014

“Why Abundance is Good: A Reply to Nick Carr”

            In Clay Shirky’s response to Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, he states how he believes that Carr’s premises are correct but how he also disagrees with some of Carr’s points. He agrees that the mechanism of media affects the nature of thought, but he disagrees with how the article seems to be analyzing human thinking and reading when it is actually analyzing human cultures. Shirky states how Carr refers to unrealistic pieces of writing. Carr references War and Peace, which is one of the longest novels and symbolizes the height of literary ambition and readerly devotion. He says that most people these days do not want to read such challenging texts and this it is not very interesting. He agrees with the fact that Carr notes, “we may well be writing more today than we did in the 1970s or the 1980..” but he believes that it has not brought back the ideals of culture during those times. Shirky believes that the main concern in the article is that having lost its actual centrality some time ago, the literary world is now losing its normative hold on culture as well. Shirky compares the “cultural sacrifice in the transformation of the media landscape” with the Internet, to that with the Printing Press. He explains how the evolution of technology always ruins the device and culture that went along with it in the past to that of the future, but that that does not make it wrong. That the culture change comes with the increase is consumption and production, that the introduction of new products, helps society thrive and advance. A concern Shirkly has with Carr’s article is that he understand the Internet, but instead of thinking of ways to help for the future, he is stuck in the past wishing to turn back the clocks. This in Shirkly’s option does nothing, it is not beneficial at all. Shirkly seems to think society is falling into the attitude of William Sayoran, who once said “Everybody has got to die … but I have always believed an exception would be made in my case.” This being said change is inevitable, and thinking we can out smart change or prevent it from happening is foolish. We are just at the mist of what the Internet has to offer, we have to embrace it. That abundance brings on more change in society then scarcity, and the Internet provides us with a lot of information, more than has ever been available before.  

Rifkin and Parry

1. In the article "A Change of Heart about Animals" by Jeremy Rafkin published in The Los Angles Times, Rafkin uses the Rhetorical strategies pathos and identification. Rafkin used identification to show the readers he is similar to them, both humans, both eat animals and both empathetic. Using the idea of empathy, Rafkin's article discussed emotions that were proven to be felt not just by humans but animals too like loneliness and grief. He relates this facts to trigger emotions out of the readers that he also identifies himself with as also a human with these feelings to connect the reader more into his article and making it more likely to have them agree with him.

2. In the article "The Art of Branding A Condition" by Vince Parry, the author uses the rhetorical strategy of process analysis. Parry does this very successfully by seeming to know a lot about a way of marketing that only secret insiders would know. Then explaining the process to the reader as a commoner from the outside to seem more knowledgeable in a skill that is useful. He uses this knowledge to help the reader look at products in a new way and not be sucked into buying medicine when it is only something made up in ones head.

Prospectus

Prospectus

Three sources:

1.   My dad- he went to university of Phoenix for his masters in accounting. He did not like it at all and would support the argument of the degrading of a degree. What he learned he is not able to use anywhere and is basically useless. Plus it was very expensive for him to get that degree for no reason.

2.   Excerpts from Government Accountability Report on For-Profit Universities- a look into the fraud behind loans and the money making scheme behind for profit universities

3.   Holly Petreaus, “For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s”- Carey does not go into the details of the ruthlessness of the fact that for profits target military personnel.

Source 2 expanded-

Quotes from Carey-

o   “A quarter of all federal aid goes to for-profits, while they enroll only 10 percent of students”

o   “"90/10 rule," a federal rule that bars for-profits from receiving more than 90 percent of their revenue from federal aid. The fact that the rule exists at all, and that Miller is working to water it down (it used to be the 85/15 rule), shows that for-profits operate in nothing like a subsidy-free market.”

Quotes from Government accountability

·      “campus representatives encouraged the undercover applicants to take out loans and assisted them in becoming eligible either for grants or subsidized loans.”

·      “We also found that for the five associate's degrees we were interested in, tuition at a for-profit college was significantly more than tuition at the closest public college. On average, for the five colleges we visited, it cost between 6 and 13 times more to attend the for-profit college to obtain an associate's degree than a public college.”

This source a mainly factual source that had under cover people test and obtain information provides an example of the money making side behind this universities. How they can make money from students that have nothing and put them in debt for the rest of their life.

Source 3 expanded:

·      - quote from Carey “look no further than the "90/10 rule," a federal rule that bars for-profits from receiving more than 90 percent of their revenue from federal aid. The fact that the rule exists at all, and that Miller is working to water it down (it used to be the 85/15 rule), shows that for-profits operate in nothing like a subsidy-free market..”

·      -quote from Petreaus “A number of these schools focus on members of the armed forces with aggressive and often misleading marketing, and then provide little academic, administrative or counseling support once the students are enrolled.

·      Petreaus addresses how the 10 percent does not even cover the military guaranteed GI and how this is what for profits use as their 10 percent. So more than 890 percent of the money at for profits can be government spending. It is a loop hole in the system.

Carey's Text First Look

1. Carey organizes his text to support his option, then bring up other options and not just blatantly recruit them but explain why people might support that, but then go into even more to support his view point. I think Carey organized his text this way because as you are reading alone you understand and start to agree with Carey but then all these questions pop into your head either what others have said about the subject or what you are questioning yourself as the opposite view. Then Carey addresses that view and doesn't really make it sound like the wrong view but then goes on to talk about more examples about his view to make the opposite view just seem as the weaker argument, not wrong just weaker.

2. Carey states many facts and brings up multiple arguments. He is basically overloading the reader with information, some statics, some stories and examples about students, and some just ideas and questions, but all in all a lot of information to make the reader think and analyze and formulate an option.

3. What really stuck me is the fact that these for profit universities are harboring many students from low income families. The quote "A quarter of all federal aid goes to for-profit universities, while they enroll only 10 percent of students." Carey does not really touch on this fact that he is stating to back it up with maybe these are students who were denied any other education. That this was a last resort and that is why there is many government funding for these students that come from nothing looking for an education at an affordable price. Carey does not really show evidence of any of this happening. 

For Profit Universities

Before watching a few documentaries about for profit universities I can honestly say I have never heard of a for profit University. After watching the documentaries I realized I know many people that have attended these universities including my own father who went to University if Phoenix. After watching these documentaries I called him to ask his opinion on them. I gathered that the horror stories expressed in the documentaries are not every case. My father was smart and went back as a graduate student had money saved up and decided on a for profit university because of its convince and flexible hours. College can be very challenging and offering a college that there are no prerequisites for is bound to have some issues. First of all an issue they did touch in the films was the strategy of targeting low income families and student because of the appeal of finical aid and student loans. This in my opinion is mean of the school to express such options when they know most likely the loan will not be able to be paid off and that is how to school or "business" makes its money. But in all honesty I think it is the students fault that they are not doing the research or even consulting others about this. When googling a school like University of Phoenix all of these case studies show up even minimal research would make me question going there. Loans are a very tricky situation to get ones self into, banks offer them to students, businessmen, couples looking to buy a home, why should these schools be scrutinized for offering these loans that do offer one to help them receive an education and become successful in life. I would have liked that opinion to at least have been mildly expressed in the films instead of that always being the bad guy. In contrary I did not like the marketing strategy of the schools, forcing people to make phone calls and target low income families and students to pressure them into going back to school and taking on this tremendous dept. In addition making the telephone operators have quotas that must be met almost forcing them to force students to agree and sign up. Also the concept of the spending how more goes towards marketing then the teaching staff, makes me think of the school as a business first school second.

Essay rough draft

Public Thinking

         A common belief in today’s society is that the youth are not as skilled when it comes to reading and writing. A common argument for this is that past generations did not have internet and did not waste time on computers and phones when they wrote actual latters and read more books. Clive Thompson, author of “Public Thinking” would disagree. Thompson argues that not only does new technological advancements not put the youth behind, it helps strengthen the youth become better writers. One claim Thompson makes is that because there is an increase in writing on the internet, the youth is exposed to more writing, and there are more opportunities to be heard. In my analysis of Thompsons text I will examine why Thompson believes that in todays society writing is more important and how writing has improved from previous generations.

         Thompsons first claim is that writing for an audience improves ones writings and helps one become a better writer. When someone is writing for themselves they do not have any pressure to write to their full potential, but when an author knows that people could be reading something and judging the work, one is more likely to try harder. What better audience is the internet. Posting something on the internet anyone can read it, not just people you live near by but anyone in the world with internet. This compels authors to put time and effort into their writings even if it is something as simple as a blog post. As Gabriel Weinberg, a founder of a search engine created to protects one’s privacy, “If someone were to come across it in my name, I have to take it more seriously” (54). This is known as the audience effect, when someone knows there is an audience watching them or reading their work, they tend to try harder in fear of judgment. Thompson uses research to help prove his point, “studies have found that particularly when it comes to analytic or critical thought, the effort of communicating to someone else forces you to think more precisely, make deeper connections, and learn more” (55). Through this quote, Thompson proves that the audience effect that works with athletes and musicians also works with writers, and that knowing there is an audience helps writers out their best foot forward and revise their work until they feel it is good enough.  Having the internet available as ones audience where anyone can read anything can really put pressure on someone to think before they post something. Having this generation exposed to such a large audience then what was around before the internet is incomparable. Anyone can now be a writer and get recognized right from their bedrooms, they do not need to be published in The New York Times to be noticed.

         Although intelligent writing is very important to help readers and writers grow intellectually, just plain writing in general can be very beneficial not just for the audience, but for the individual. Thompson claims “writers often find that it is only when they start writing that they figure out what they want to say” (51). With writing especially when the audience effect comes into play, many writers have a tough time starting and getting stuff written down. But once the worlds are out there and on paper, it becomes much easier to formulate ones ideas. This idea of writing what comes to mind and then analyzing it later is not only common among novelists and journalists but poets too. Cecil Day-Lewis commented on his poetic compositions once, “we do not write in order to be understood, we write in order to understand” (51). Thompson is trying to convey that writing can be a great way for someone to express what they want to say and how they are feeling, in some ways it can be therapeutic.

         The internet is a great way to make connections, with anyone being able to post anything around the world. Making connection and discussing topics with groups that are interested in the same topic helps generate deeper thought that could lead to discoveries. History shows that even if two people have never meet before they can both independently invent the same thing neither person knowing someone else has already done that. This is known as the law of multiples, where there is a need or an advancement in society and two people think up the exact same solution. In 1922 sociologists William Ogburn and Dorothy Thompson had a explanation why, “our ideas are, in a crucial way, partly products of our environment” (59).  This exemplifies that one’s peers and the knowledge one obtains from them helps shape their ideas and thoughts. The internet being a breeding ground of people with all different thoughts and ideas waiting to make connections.

Due to this surplus of writing, digital media is creating a golden age of literacy. Because of the benefits of having the internet there is a lot more writing then there ever has been before. Due to the audience effect a lot of the writing is well written pieces. Writing like this has not been seen for years and should be something as a society to be proud of, not ashamed of the use of our new technology.