Why Our Complex Relationship with the Internet is Neither Good Nor Bad
What's the Latest Development?
There is no question as to whether or not the web provides us with a wealth of information. Every day an average of "300 billion emails" are sent. What is more of a concern is if this is good or bad for society. Some claim the former, arguing that it allowing anybody to access any kind of information whenever raises our potential. The opposing take is that the sheer amount of information is too much. Those who stand behind this argument suggest that the ability to jump from page to page in an instant and read a summary of a longer article has made our collective attention span shorter and so it is harder for us to engage as deeply as we used to.
There is a third party, however. Headed by Chad Wellmon, a professor at the University of Virginia and expert on the matter, these people propose that the internet has neither a good nor bad effect on society. They think that there are two flaws in the way their conflicting contemporaries view the situation. One is that both attempt to isolate technology from humans, as if one could change independent of the other. Wellmon and like-minded people claim that the two are linked, and change each other, and therefore one could not completely steer the other in a specific direction.
The other flaw that they point out is that those who claim the internet is either good or bad operate under the assumption that it is part of a technology boom unprecedented in all of history. This is an unfounded idea, as there have been busts in the past of equal magnitude relative to the time period of occurrence. The enlightenment period is one example. Humans have adapted to new technology, it has never brought about utopia or complete destruction. Those who agree with Wellmon think that using the internet is just the way of life of our time period.
What's the Big Idea?
Wellmon believes that the web and its seemingly endless stacks of information is neither a good, nor bad thing. To him, it is, "the very manner in which humans engage the world." Saying Google makes us stupid, or smart, is too simple a phrase for such a complex relationship.
Photo credit: Shutterstock.com
Read it at The Hedgehog Review
Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.
No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.
Research by neuroscientists at MIT's Picower Institute for Learning and Memory helps explain how the brain regulates arousal.
The big day has come: You are taking your road test to get your driver's license. As you start your mom's car with a stern-faced evaluator in the passenger seat, you know you'll need to be alert but not so excited that you make mistakes. Even if you are simultaneously sleep-deprived and full of nervous energy, you need your brain to moderate your level of arousal so that you do your best.
A disturbing interview given by a KGB defector in 1984 describes America of today and outlines four stages of mass brainwashing used by the KGB.
- Bezmenov described this process as "a great brainwashing" which has four basic stages.
- The first stage is called "demoralization" which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.
- According to the former KGB agent, that is the minimum number of years it takes to re-educate one generation of students that is normally exposed to the ideology of its country.
When these companies compete, in the current system, the people lose.
- When a company reaches the top of the ladder, they typically kick it away so that others cannot climb up on it. The aim? So that another company can't compete.
- When this phenomenon happens in the pharmaceutical world, companies quickly apply for broad protection of their patents, which can last up to 20 years, and fence off research areas for others. The result of this? They stay at the top of the ladder, at the cost of everyday people benefitting from increased competition.
- Since companies have worked out how to legally game the system, Amin argues we need to get rid of this "one size fits all" system, which treats product innovation the same as product invention. Companies should still receive an incentive for coming up with new products, he says, but not 20 years if the product is the result of "tweaking" an existing one.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.