Ally Ferrell
Professor Werry
RWS 100
September 26, 2014
Response to Thompson
The internet has only been around for a few decades, yet has become one of the most prominent technologies in society today. Almost everyone you see will have access to the web just sitting in their pocket. Because of its relevance and easy access, the internet has become just as much of a writing tool as a pencil and paper are. The real question here though is, is this tool actually improving writing? The general consensus seems to be that the internet has decreased today’s teens’ writing skills because of the casualty of it. However, many researchers have shown that this generation has better writing skills than ever. One of these researchers is Clive Thompson, who has been fascinated with technology since he was just a kid. Thompson has been a long-time writer for the New York Times Magazine and focuses on writing about digital technologies and their social and cultural impact. He argues in his essay, "Public Thinking", from his book, Smarter Than You Think, that the internet is absolutely responsible for this general increase in cognitive behavior. He claims that the publicness of our writings has improved the way we think. He supports this by bringing up statistics, personal experiences, and examples of other people. In this paper, I will analyze Thompson’s main arguments and how he goes about supporting them. In addition to examining his good arguments, I will also examine his weaker points and where he could have improved his support.
Walking around an average college campus, one sees almost everyone on his or her phone texting, tweeting, or emailing. Clive Thompson insists that all of these small tasks add up to a surprising amount of writing. Thompson’s first supporting claim is that this generation writes more than any other before. Briefly, he insists that “the internet has produced a foaming Niagara of writing”(46). Just like each water drop in the Niagara Falls helps to create one of the biggest and most powerful waterfalls in the world, each word that a person writes is a small part of a larger mass. In order to explain this increase of writing production, he shows research about American literacy done by a scholar named Deborah Brandt. In the past, “Brandt notes, writing was something you did mostly for work, serving an industrial purpose and not personal passions”(50). However, Thompson summarizes Brandt again, now “in our own time, we’re also writing a stunning amount of material about things we’re simply interested in—our hobbies, our friends, weird things we’ve read or seen online, sports, current events, last night’s episode of our favorite TV show”(51). Writing has become less of a task, and more of a social tool and hobby. It is much easier to write more when you are doing it optionally and enjoy the topic, rather than writing because you need to for a job or school. People write for entertainment now because, compared to the past, others can much more easily read, respond, and start a conversation that is interesting to the author and reader.
Just because people are writing more, does not necessarily mean that they are writing better. Although, according to Thompson, the internet has actually improved this generation’s writing skills due to something called the “audience effect”. Similarly to giving a speech or performing in front of an audience, this effect causes people to think about what they are doing, because they know somebody will be seeing and judging it. When writing and creating an argument, one will tend to make it stronger when he or she knows that somebody will be reading it and can easily tear apart a weak argument. We see examples of this everyday. When writing a post on Facebook or posting on a public blog, almost anyone can comment on it and critique it. Thompson says that this causes people to think more carefully about what they’re writing and create a stronger and more planned out argument. Thompson gives an example of of what bloggers frequently tell him. They tell him that they start to write on their blogs, “but pretty soon they think about the fact that someone’s going to read this as soon as it’s posted. And suddenly all the weak points in their argument, their cliches and lazy, autofill thinking, become painfully obvious”(52). When posting something on the internet, one realizes that almost anybody can see it. A future employer, a family member, or friend can easily search for or stumble upon the post. This will probably cause the author to think about how professional and appropriate their writing is and in a broader sense, cause them to think about how their actions can affect their future and relationships. For example, Gabriel Weinberg, a founder for a search engine meant for protecting user privacy, says that “Even if I was publishing it[his blog] to no one, it’s just the threat of an audience. If someone could come across it under my name, I have to take it more seriously”(54). Although this is an argument that doesn’t need much convincing, Thompson backs it up more with research from sources such as Vanderbilt University professors and Sir Francis Bacon rather than only some unnamed bloggers.
A popular counter-argument is that today’s technology has lowered teens’ grammar and spelling due to informal texting and IM language. However, Thompson explains why it actually has the opposite effect. He uses research done by a Stanford University English professor, Andrea Lunsford.Her research supports that using IM acronyms such as “LOL” have made almost no negative impacts on today’s writings(66). Thompson explains how others’ research shows that “one analyzed 1.5 million words from instant messages by teens and found that there, only 3 percent of the words used were IM-style short forms”(66). He suggests that the amount of writing done via instant messaging has a much more powerful impact than the type of writing done. In fact, using these acronyms and other casual talk in social situations is actually helpful. We have learned to change tone and sophistication based on who we are writing to or the context of the work, which is a very valuable life skill. Thompson uses a mixture of reliable resources and relatable subjects to help support his argument. Hearing statistics about texting is much easier to connect to than statistics about writing books.
The theory of multiples is another idea that Thompson brings up. He explains how the internet has created a revolutionary network of ideas. In the past, multiple people would discover the same thing without knowing another already had. Thompson uses historical examples of scientists rediscovering the same thing because they were not in contact(60-61).With the internet, people can share ideas and bounce ideas off of each other. Reading articles or a blog that are interesting to you can help to spark new ideas. When you comment on these articles or posts, you may start a chain of new ideas that spreads throughout the world. If interested in a subject, one can easily just google it and most likely find a website for that subject. When he or she does so, they now have access to information that others had previously posted. With this, the person does not have to rediscover said information and can then spend his or her time on expanding the idea and possibly discovering something further on their own. It becomes a chain effect of expanding research and knowledge on almost any subject that you can think of.
In conclusion, Thompson makes a good argument about how the internet is helpful to improve this generation’s cognitive behavior. However, he fails to acknowledge many factors that might show how the internet is harmful to thinking. Some questions that popped into my head as I read Thompson’s essay remain unanswered. Although we do have such easy access to the internet today, the smartphones that many people are using to do so limit the full potential to do something great. On a smartphone, one may write frequently, however, it is usually just a casual text or email. Is the easy access to google making people more reliant on technology than memorized knowledge? Does using easy access to others’ works on the internet cause unoriginality? Although Thompson does a good job of analyzing the general use of internet, he does not go into enough detail of the way it is being accessed.
Works Cited
Thompson, Clive. “Public Thinking”. Smarter Than You Think. Penguin Press. Sept. 12, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment