[Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"

Wed Jun 18 13:00:50 EDT 2008

And why not seem hostile to something one might dislike intensely?  We
have been so rigorously conditioned to be nonjudgmental, open,
accepting--pick your own 'golly I'm tolerant' term--that except for the
commentariat on the tube and radio nobody expresses a strong opinion
strongly.   The ones who do, right and left, simply play theme and
variations on their personal prejudices and how some person, place, or
thing either harmonizes or clashes with them so they don't even do it
intelligently.  Also, the headline is what they call in the narrative
trade a 'hook' meant to grab a potential reader and haul him or her in.
In this case, I think both the pro- and anti-Google forces who bit got a
surprise that Google is neither as wonderful or evil as they thought,
given their prejudices.  Our profession is all about not judging a book
by its cover.  Let us not judge an essay by its hook.

Kathleen Stipek
Alachua County Library District
401 East University Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32601
352-334-3931  (fax) 352-334-3948

     --Non, merci.
       Cyrano de Bergerac

-----Original Message-----
From: publib-bounces at webjunction.org
[mailto:publib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Marianne Follis
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:12 PM
To: jsanderson at nngov.com; jschallan at yahoo.com
Cc: Publib
Subject: RE: [Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"

And yet the title isn't "Is the Internet changing the way we think?," it
is "Is Google making us stupid?"  The title alone seems to condemn,
which to many may seem hostile.

-----Original Message-----
From: jsanderson at nngov.com [mailto:jsanderson at nngov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:33 PM
To: jschallan at yahoo.com
Cc: Publib; Marianne Follis
Subject: RE: [Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"

Having now read the entire article I have to say I found it stimulating
and informative.  It asks us to consider the long term effects of our
ever greater use/dependence on technology based information searching.
It is never wrong to reflect on how are world is changing both to the
good and to the bad.  Which is which may be open to discussion (and
isn't one of the points that we need to have that discussion and that it
is not possible without reflection?)  The article seems to ask us to
consider important things like the difference between knowledge and
wisdom, fact gathering and thinking.  I do not see it as condeming
technology as a fact gathering tool, but it does ask that we be aware of
the impact it may have, an impact we may not notice on a day to day
basis. To ask serious questions about important trends (and technologiey
certainly qualifies) is not to condemn the trend and should not be seen
as hostility.

      As to music, did they write any after Beethoven?
(Just kidding, I like the Beatles)  Jim
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:52:08 -0700 (PDT), Joe Schallan
<jschallan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 6/16/08, Marianne Follis
<Marianne.Follis at cityofcarrollton.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> And I have to say I think longing for the good old days will get you 
>> no where.  Didn't the adults of the 50's think that Rock n Roll was 
>> going to lead to the downfall of our nation's youth?
> 
> Hmmm. Even as I wrote my post, I thought that it was only a matter of
time
> before someone dragged out the old-fogey card and played it.
> 
> This is very close to Godwin's Law, and I shall take credit and call
it
> Schallan's Law -- whenever someone expresses skepticism about
technology,
> meaningful discussion ends when the skeptic is implied to be an old
fogey,
> resistant to change.  Library managers, freshly back from conference
with
> New Ideas to complicate our service to our patrons, regularly employ 
> Schallan's Law to put the kibosh on closer examination.
> 
> I have reread my posts, and nowhere do I express longing for the good
old
> days. In my case, those were the 60s, and I think I made it clear that
I
> think though they now be old days indeed, they were never very good
days.
> 
> 
>> Please don't tell me you don't like rock!
> 
> 
> I don't like rock.
> 
> I find it hopelessly short form and infantile, written expressly for
the
> attention-challenged and fatuous. In a nutshell, Sinatra sings for
adults;
> rockers sing for juveniles.
> 
> Though no one should take offense at my opinion. De gustibus non 
> disputandum est.
> 
> How I came to dislike rock is interesting insofar as it relates to
Carr's
> thesis that the style in which information is delivered can reprogram
our
> brains for better or worse.
> 
> Having come of age in the 60s and early 70s (my dad even putting the 
> kibosh on my scheme to take his truck/camper across country to attend 
> Woodstock), I was a guy who loved rock. Among my favorites: Jimi
Hendrix,
> Jim Morrison and the Doors, the Stones, Cream (Disraeli Gears and
Wheels
> of Fire), CSN&Y, The Band, Led Zeppelin, Buffalo Springfield, Jethro
Tull,
> and many others, and most of all, Bruce Springsteen.  Interestingly, I

> especially liked "long-form," thematic rock, and thus Pink Floyd, the 
> Moody Blues, Tommy. The seven-minute "Light My Fire" was the only
version
> that interested me.
> 
> And then, late on, I discovered opera, and I have to say it killed
most
of
> rock for me, as well as most of orchestral classical music, although
not
> jazz, Sinatra, or some country.  I just didn't hear the stuff like I
used
> to, and could not believe that I had ever taken it seriously.
> 
> So when Carr says a medium has the ability to reprogram our brains,
the
> point resonates with me.  A style of music sure as heck reprogrammed
my
> brain.
> 
> I would go on to a passioned defense of deep reading, but Karen has 
> already done it eloquently, and I again refer you to
Freerangelibrarian.
> 
> How does Carr's thesis relate to what we do as librarians? It relates
to
> what we promote and endorse. For my part, I will be a long-form 
> evangelist, and try to make converts. I will have no part in
programming
> that makes war on reading.
> 
> What we do isn't a profession; it is a calling. We must carefully
consider
> what we are incentivizing with the limited resources at our disposal.
We
> aren't removing gallstones or laying pipe; we are ministering to
minds.
> 
> 
> 
> Brothers and sisters, you may now take your hands off the computer.
> 
> Joe Schallan
> Phoenix
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Publib mailing list
> Publib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/publib

_______________________________________________
Publib mailing list
Publib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/publib