We tweeted an interesting Slate article yesterday titled Don't Touch That Dial! A history of media technology scares, from the printing press to Facebook.The article reminds us that condemnation of new technologies is not new:In parallel with modern concerns about children's overuse of technology, Socrates famously warned against writing because it would "create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories." He also advised that children can't distinguish fantasy from reality, so parents should only allow them to hear wholesome allegories and not "improper" tales, lest their development go astray. The Socratic warning has been repeated many times since: The older generation warns against a new technology and bemoans that society is abandoning the "wholesome" media it grew up with, seemingly unaware that this same technology was considered to be harmful when first introduced.In this and other instances of societal hand-wringing, the discourse often gets stripped of nuance and turned into a blunt question, like: Is technology good or bad? Not only is that dichotomy unhelpful in thinking through the deeper issues, but it pressures people to choose a side: Are you a technophile who dives blindly into each new digital development or a luddite who takes pride in not owning a cell phone?
I've seen this false duality play out over and over in higher ed communications. The technophobia discussion is unavoidably laden with generational and age factors already. When placed in a university setting where distinct groups of young(er) and old(er) people meet, people may cling more strongly to their chosen "side" in the discussion. And, no matter your age, it's often easier to fall back on a stance of "I'm just not a technology person" than to take on new duties at work, or conversely, to invest time in sending your message through every new media without stopping to assess its importance to your audience.
I think the reason so many of the articles' headlines written on this subject are framed as questions is that there is no simple answer. And, as the Slate article says, the research fueling the news story is almost always less shocking, and may even suggest that, say, video games are good for us.
Part of me thinks that Socrates had it easy: his choice was between saying something aloud or writing it on parchment.* Now, when I want to communicate something my department is working on, I have to consider magazines, research journals, Facebook (MySpace? LinkedIn?), speeches, videos (YouTube? Vimeo?), Twitter, Google Buzz, posters, brochures, Web sites, Web apps, photo galleries, direct mail, text messaging, phone calls, fact sheets, print ads, Web ads, billboards, sidewalk chalk, blogs, news releases, guerilla campaigns, e-mails, e-newsletters, letters, banners, give-aways, booklets, slideshows, radio interviews, TV commercials, and on and on. It's easy to see why some overwhelmed journalist might ask:
Is technology making us crazy?
Though I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg, here are some related articles that have made the rounds in the past few years:
- Is Google Making Us Stupid? -- The Atlantic
- Is the Internet Making Us Stupid? -- NPR
- Is Facebook Making Us Paranoid? -- beliefnet
- Is Facebook Making Us Sad? -- Big Think
- Is Technology Making Us Dumber? -- Psychology Today
- Is Technology Making Us Idiots? -- Psychology Today
- Is Technology Making Us Lazy? -- EduBook
- E-mail is Making You Stupid -- Entrepreneur.com
- E-mails 'hurt IQ more than pot' -- CNN.com
- Twitter and Facebook could harm moral values, scientists warn -- Telegraph.co.uk
- Facebook and MySpace generation 'cannot form relationships' -- Telegraph.co.uk
- How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer -- Dailymail.co.uk
- Warning: brain overload -- Times Online
- The Lure of Data: Is It Addictive? -- The New York Times
EDIT: I overlooked these two important articles that add to the discussion:
- How Google Is Making Us Smarter -- Discover Magazine
- And the Survey Says: Google Is Not Making You Stupid -- Discover Magazine
*Would it have been parchment? History majors, correct me...
This is a fun piece that has also been written in other times in response to other concerns. (I think it was still true at the turn of the 19th century into the 20th, by the way, that people still believed too much education would make a woman "hysterical." Now the concern seems gender-free, at least.) We have so many more possibilities for ... See Morecommunication, it's true, but no matter our age or perspective, it seems the age-old questions still must guide us: Who is our audience and how best to reach them? Followed closely by: Is this message better suited to a certain medium(a); and: Realistically, what are our resources in terms of how many media we can employ within the current capacity of our office?
ReplyDelete