Postrel. My favorite.

2008-11-13T08:50:00.002-06:00

Postrel's argument critiques the critics who say too much choice is a bad side effect of our consumer culture.

I'm glad that he is against the whole critique, because just sitting through it annoyed me. "Amazon gives every town a bookstore with 2 million titles, while Netflix promises 35,000 different movies on DVD," Postrel says. So what about those of us with distinct taste? Those who watch New Wave French films? Those who read books that no one else has ever heard of and follow authors of the same type?

The truth is, most people I know are like this. Well, they don't watch New Wave French films, but they have an interest in genres others, including me, don't care about.

"Since different people care about different things, only a society where choice is abundant everywhere can truly accomodate the variety of human beings." This is exactly how I feel. In fact, I feel that upon reading those critics I may had said something quite similar, those less eloquent.

It seems these critics are another case of promoters of "the good 'ol days." The good 'ol days when there was less variety, fewer distinctions between people's interests, and don't forget less "choice stress."

I don't know about you, but personally, I'll take whatever "stress" my abundance of choices throws at me, while keeping my off-the-wall films and music.

I find it funny that most I hear talk about the old days say that my generation (now in college) takes things for granted. You can have your "good 'ol days," and I'll keep my satisfaction and knowledge that I live in a pretty good place and an even better time.

My response to Carr. Google is NOT making us stupid.

2008-11-06T13:52:00.001-06:00

Nicholas Carr's entire argument is based off of the notion that the internet has changed the way we think. "Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy," he said, "that's rarely the case anymore."

I think that it's a very plausible argument. I remember how I read before I got into high school and my family got the internet. Now I read very differently. I'll multi-task while reading, going from site to site.

My problem with his argument is saying this is a bad thing. I mean, before, I would have to take what was on the page as-is, unless I wanted to stroll through the library for hours or do some in-depth encyclopedia reading. Now, if I have any confusion or questions about what I have read (for instance, what Irish Brigade in the Civil War?), instead of just pushing on and missing a very important link, I can site-hop, find information that is as quick or lengthy as I wish, and then continue reading with a better understanding.

I get irritated when I read something and don't understand all of it now. I used to move on, and now I linger on every last detail. But I always finish the article, I just don't immerse myself in it. I've come to find that when I immerse myself in reading, I read it more quickly and less thoroughly, getting less out of the entire process. With this new-found "internet reading," I walk away with much more.

I think Carr is onto something here, because I do believe that new media change the way we think, especially when it takes over our lives as thoroughly as th internet has. I just happen to think there are good qualities to this mindset change.

I have a feeling that Carr might have taken his argument too far. It isn't about what medium we are using to read, it is about how we are using it. How we read internet articles and find information on the internet is not an inherit trait of the internet or Google itself, it is a choice that most of us make daily.

My dad is the best example I know. He is big into our Irish heritage, as we have a well-known Irish writer in our ancestry from a couple of generations back. My dad reads lengthy article after lengthy article about Irish history, from religion to war to popular culture.

Since the internet, I would say he has so much more background information than before, that he would probably be more able than ever to read and be immersed in a long novel or complicated article. He doesn't have to jump from site to site like I often do, because he already understands the small references, which is what I am working on heading towards myself.

Carr makes some interesting points in his article, but I'm not totally bought in. While I think the internet has changed the way we think, I don't believe it's the tragedy that Carr presents it as. It makes us think as if we can always learn and do more, which can bring up the "jet-skier" mindset. But, what is wrong with jet-skiing until you are familiar with the waters and then going down for a scuba dive?

My word? Using the internet to learn more is anything but bad news. If you are concerned with your mindset change, don't attack the medium; attack the way you are using it.

Kelan's Thoughts on Life and Other Trivial Things

Postrel. My favorite.

My response to Carr. Google is NOT making us stupid.