By Lauren Martin

The Dangers of Text Messaging

The definition of text messaging, or texting, refers to the exchange of brief written text messages between fixed-line phones and mobile phones. Texting has become a prominent technological advance in teenager’s lives, and is the first form of technology that takes a step back from our society’s progression. Teens text even while crossing the street, driving, and finishing homework. Text messaging is a way of life for teenagers in society today, and teens even text so much that their thumbs begin to hurt during the day. According to an article in The New York Times by Katie Hafner, the texting phenomenon is beginning to worry physicians and psychologists, who say it is leading to anxiety, distraction in school, falling grades, repetitive stress injury, and sleep deprivation. Dr. Martin Joffe, a pediatrician in Greenbrae, California, recently surveyed students at two local high schools and said he found that many were routinely sending hundreds of texts every day. “That’s one every few minutes,” he said. “Then you hear that these kids are responding to texts late at night. That’s going to cause sleep issues in an age group that’s already plagued with sleep issues.” Psychologists are even expressing concern about text messaging causing a shift in the way adolescents develop. Text messaging has dwindled our thought processes to an all time low, molding teenagers into individuals whose minds cannot seem to focus on a particular subject for prolonged amounts of time. Text messaging has made a lasting impact on teen’s personal lives, as shown in the graphs and statistics by Harris Interactive. The fact that the majority (57%) of teens view their cell phones as the “key” to their social lives proves that teenagers in our society depend on technology to make their lives seem “complete.”

Pew Internet released a graph, on the right, concerning the percent of teen cell phone owners that have experienced negative aspects while text messaging. The graph displays the negativity involved with the texting phenomenon in the eyes of the beholders themselves, teenagers. The graph refutes the idea that text messaging is the “greatest” technological advance of our time.

Text messaging has changed the way my generation communicates and critically thinks. When I think about how many times I text throughout my day, I lose count. With receiving, reading, and sending text messages my generation has become utterly dependent on the advance as a lifestyle. When I try to fathom living without text messaging, and without my phone in general, I cannot even imagine starting my day without having constant “communication” with my friends and family. The saddening aspect of my thought process is that I did not even receive a cellphone until my eighth grade year, even then my cellphone constantly sat idol on my dresser. The fact of the matter is text messaging cannot be regarded as a sophisticated form of “communication” between two people. There is no interaction involved in the typing of a text message, and no contemplation over the subject matter. How will this “texting” phenomenon affect future generations in the subjects of critical thinking and reflection? Text messaging is “instant” hence the other term for text messaging, “instant messaging.” There is no thought process needed in text messaging, and instant gratification can be received through text messages. My generation thrives on instant rewards and gratification, causing my generation to become bored with lengthy tasks. This, in turn, leads to my generation becoming distracted and easily bored, causing short-term attention spans. Technology and text messaging has molded my generation into “mindless” individuals who turn to technology to “distract” us from the cumbersome tasks of our daily lives.

Mark Bauerlein's book, “The Dumbest Generation” centers around the issues of technology and my generation, or “the dumbest generation.” I personally have a dystopian view towards technology and the way it has shaped us to become less connected individuals in society. When I get bored, I turn to Facebook and Twitter, instead of picking up a novel or getting ahead on my studies. Just as I am writing this blog post, the spelling and grammar correction aspect of Word “corrected” my mistake of not thinking to capitalize Facebook. The word “Facebook” would have been foreign to Microsoft Word a decade ago, let alone the correction of the word. I turn to technology to satisfy my ever-wondering mind, and I believe technology has “dumbed” down my thought process. Technology has brought many advances to society, but I feel that the cons outweigh the pros. My generation is dependent on technology; the most horrifying fact of the matter is that technology will always be prominent in our lives. Human beings created the “Frankenstein” of our society, known as technology, and I hope one day the creation will never outsmart the creator.

Graphs and Links

Fun Links and Videos:

http://www.lingo2word.com/translate.php

http://youtu.be/F7cmf6KKhg8

http://youtu.be/hv-GR_ANwjI

http://youtu.be/yS3SCHrSduk

http://youtu.be/3JyGlqZN5EE

By Carlos Quintana

Do You Have Time On Your Hands?

The media is perhaps the most powerful (other than the family) aspect in socialization and in controlling how people think and what they do. According to a study from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the New York Times, people between the ages of 8-18 use media technology (this can be anything from cell phones to television) about eight hours a day. This study does not count the cell phones use of texting and calling. Five years ago, the average use of digital media that people in this age range was six to six and a half hours. Here is the post from the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/education/20wired.html

It is predicted that the average will only rise over time. Can this be a good thing for the future? Or is it bad that people are engaged with the media for so long? There are both advantages and disadvantages of being engaged in media for so long in a day. One distinct advantage of engaging in media for profound periods of time is that it teaches you a lot of different information and how to find a lot of different information in such a short amount of time. A great example is when you are doing a research project, instead of going to the library and looking at book after book after book, all you have to do is just get on the internet and search what you are looking for in a search engine. A disadvantage of using the media for such long periods of time is that one can lose the ability of normal human to human interaction and face to face communication which is very valuable in our society. If people are always online, they are also risking getting obese because they are inactive for most of the day, so this could lead to more important health issues which cannot be ignored.


There are also some humors that because of all the time people are spending on the web that the generation of today is becoming “dumb”. According to Mark Bauerlein, today’s generation which uses a lot of media technology, is becoming dumb because according to him “the generation of the Digital Natives cannot focus or concentrate on things as how generations in the past used to.” I think that this is irrelevant, people do have a lot of distractions today as compared to past generations, but I do not think that the media we use is affecting how “smart” we are. We cannot compare our “smartness” with past generations because it is not fair, they did not have the technology that we do not have now. In talking about concentration, they probably had more time to concentrate on things more, but humans can still achieve that high level of focus and concentration, if we didn’t, then all this technology and the counter-argument which I am making against Mark Bauerlein, would be nearly impossible. All in all, I think it is arrogant to even call our generation the “smartest generation” because in the future, people will be dreaming up of technology which we can’t even dream of right now. Past generations have also been smart, if it was not for them, then we would not have the technology which we have today.

Technology: Adaptive Brains? Adaptive Education?

By Victoria Benson

According to an article posted by a site called Reuters regarding what source people use for receiving and obtaining information, the internet is definitely the clear winner. After the results from their poll the article states, “The Internet is by far the most popular source of information and the preferred choice for news ahead of television, newspapers and radio, according to a new poll in the United States.” This is just one example of how influential and prominent technology has become in our society. This high importance of technology can also be seen in many other aspects such as cell phones, texting, iPads, notebooks, laptops, and more.

The graph below shows the amount and type of technology uses of ages 8-16 which shows part of the ages of the so called “dumbest generation” and how much they use technology and the numbers are still increasing.



This graph below shows the usage of 18 years and older which is also partly made up of the “dumbest generation” (most of the people my age (18) and our class’s ages are included in this range) and also shows very high usages of technological resources.



These graphs also portray the immense use of technology in society focusing on the amount of consumers and owners.



This graph even emphasizes the usage of one technology while using a different technology which again further emphasizes just how much of a role technology plays in society these days.




With the ever growing use of technology among young generations, there also comes and every growing amount of changes. The way the younger generations communicate and learn is drastically changing with each new device that evolves. In Marc Prensky’s articles “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrant” and “Do They Really Think Differently?” he mentions that there is an actual physiological change in the brains of younger generations or as he calls it, the “Digital-Generation” based on our emergence in digital technology. This change that is due to our exposure and reliance on technology has caused changes in the way we think and process information according to Prensky. This change in turn affects our way of learning and being educated in school. Some argue that it has deteriorated our social skills in verbal communication and social interactions. Critics and believers argue back and forth with whether the new technologies’ are beneficial or detrimental but when it comes down to it, technology has both pros and cons and the issue lies not in deciding on which it is but in deciding on which outweighs the other and at what cost one is willing to go in order to reap the benefits of the new innovations.

Personally I don’t think that we are the dumbest generation. Maybe the correct word would be ignorant or lazy, or maybe we are just misunderstood. I think one of the unfortunate effects of us growing up in the digital era is the fact that it made everything so much more convenient and therefore made us far lazier. For example, when doing a question for a homework assignment, why would one search for minutes in his text book when he can find the answer in seconds on Google? It is just our way of thinking. The new social technologies and way of society has set us for a drive for efficiency and speed. We desire to get the answer the quickest and easiest way and therefore the technologies has made us lazy when it comes to learning and retaining knowledge when we can virtually do all our assignments from the internet and memorize for a test then delete it all to memorize for the next test. Just because we seem lazy and have a need to be efficient does not mean we are literally dumb. Technology has clearly made an extreme change in the way we live and do and the ineffective education system has caused us to be lazy with our studies. I wonder, has Mark Bauerlein ever thought that maybe it’s not us that are dumb but the educators and boards that may be dumb for not attempting to change themselves instead of changing our brains. As technological and biological researchers have found, one of the biggest changes new technologies has brought was a physiological change in our brains. Our brains have literally transformed due to adapting to the world around us. It can’t be logical then to expect us to learn in the old ways if our brains are not in the old form. The administrators and teachers need to implement new ways of learning that accommodate our different way of processing to allow us to flourish in the way that is helpful to our nature. We are not dumb because the technology has literally made us less smart mentally, we are seen as dumb because the education no longer suits our new ways. Technology has clearly given us the capacity to be smarter than ever before with the amounts of knowledge and resources available at our fingertips. But maybe the definition of smart has changed as well. The truth is, this is how the world is now and there is no way that our brains are going back to the old ways or technology is going back to the old ways so why not adapt our education and hopefully stop people from being misled to think that we are the “dumbest generation.”

Sources
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/17/us-media-internet-life-idUSTRE55G4XA20090617
http://www.frankwbaker.com/mediause.htm
http://www.mguhlin.org/2009/12/graphs-writing-and-technology.html

Forever-Opposing Opinions on Technology

By Kyle Cochran

As technology rapidly advances in our society, especially consumer technology, the divide between its proponents and opponents grows wider and wider. Many claim that consumer technologies such as computers, social media, smart phones, tablets, etc. have begun to destroy how civilized society communicates and will lead to its members having a much more sedentary lifestyle. Others, however, claim that new technologies will allow for increases in information gathering, the ability to save more paper, and an outlet for people to always stay “connected.” Although there is no clear winner to this seemingly never-ending argument of technology making or breaking society, one point has been proven: the argument will forever exist. Psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking, Fast and Slow speaks of a theory called the “affect heuristic.” This involves someone’s predisposition to a certain idea, event, product, etc, affecting his ability to focus on its benefits as opposed to its risks or drawbacks. Despite any rational thinking that may be involved, the emotions that someone has towards technology will force them to back it almost wholeheartedly, which will continue the divide in opinions that experts have on the matter. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt put this in context by saying “The emotional tail wags the rational dog.” Therefore, as technology advances, its supposed benefits and risks will become even more prominent, widening the gap in opinions even more.

Technology Changing Us? Or Us Changing alongside Technology?

Much of the material discussed in class deals with society changing for the worse alongside the advancement of technology. Essentially, many presented ideas claim that technology has shaped how we act, think, communicate, learn, and much more, almost all for the worst. Nicholas Carr discussed his inability to edit a paper by hand due to his dependence on his “new” Macintosh computer in 1986. Bill Joy discussed how the world will become dependent on nanotechnology to treat all illnesses in the future, which will cripple our immune systems. Many more ideas have been presented, though I raise several points in response. In generations’ past, did experts in various fields not have the same concerns? Are these fears of new technologies not taken in the exact same way that the television, the car, even the printing press were? For example, many claim that text messaging and online chatting will sacrifice the ability for someone to have a face-to-face conversation. When Gutenberg invented the printing press, did people have similar concerns over proper handwriting being lost? Many claim that such accessible video games will lead to children having more sedentary lifestyles. Did the introduction of the television not lead to the same ideas? I am simply curious if all of the fear of newfound technologies is simply due to the time we live in, instead of the threats that are actually presented.

The Dumbest(?) Generation

Mark Bauerlein has many unique perspectives on how technology and digital media have shaped the current generation of youth and young adults in civilized society. He claims that the generation has forgotten many fundamental aspects of how society works and does not have simple knowledge such as awareness of political or cultural institutions. He instead claims that the people of the generation know far too much information about each other, which leads to them falling short of their intellectual potential. While I do agree with Bauerlein in claiming that some important information has been pushed by the wayside, I disagree in the products of social networking being such a poor idea. I feel as though social media and perpetual connectivity is in such an infantile state in our society, that the digital natives have not yet understood its potential. When they do, though, their ability to communicate with others constructively to share ideas of how to better the world will be fully realized.

Multi-tasking - Proficiency or Inefficiency?

By Corley Padgett

With the TV loud enough to hear his favorite show and positioned so he can watch, a student embarks on the task of typing his laborious research paper on his laptop that is due tomorrow. Another individual attempts the assigned textbook reading while talking to her friend on the phone. Still another runs on the treadmill, listening to her favorite artist on her iPod, while trying to study flashcards. “‘Multi-tasking’ implies performing two or more pieces of work simultaneously”, and it is a very prevalent dynamic in the lives of generation millennials today (Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 39).

Many young adults earnestly believe that in the academic setting and workplace environment they are able to function productively and efficiently, regardless of the diversions so prevalent in their environment. This might be due in part to the subtle persuasion by employers to accomplish the most amount of work in the least amount of time. Many people in the workforce believe that by accommodating to ever-changing technology around them, they will become more skilled and proficient at their jobs. If they fail to do this, there is apprehension they will be replaced.

However, research studies have shown this is not the case. Multi-tasking is basically the result of having to juggle various technological elements in order to complete required assignments on the job (Appelbaum & Marchionni, 2008). When an employee is incompetent or unskilled in the use of a particular tool, multi-tasking is necessary. He must continue to perform previous tasks, and yet tackle the obstacle that is hindering his progress. This pressure for productivity is “undeniable” and “has not stopped since the phenomenon first became common practice” (Appelbaum & Marchionni, 2008, p. 1323).

One research study, conducted by Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, and Chamberlin (2005), observed how technology has created an increasing problem for members of the work environment, particularly police officers. One hundred and twenty-one police officers from assorted departments were witnessed in their vehicles carrying out routine daily activities. Each activity they engaged in, such as “using a cell phone, talking, handling the radio and other objects, and writing” was recorded during the 720 minutes of their 12-hour shifts (Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 39). The study revealed that 77% of the police officers multi-tasked while driving. “Specifically, 55% were seen doing at least one other task, and 11% were observed doing at least two other tasks” (Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 39). While the police officers could multi-task, the results showed their focused attention in a specific matter was very poor. Too much time was wasted alternating from one task to another. “Engaging in multi-tasking behavior during learning can be detrimental to subsequent performance levels” (Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 46). The research concluded, in an effort to achieve an ideal outcome, it is best for the human brain to concentrate on a single aspect for a sufficient amount of time before moving on to another. Negative consequences affect memorization, as information is not processed and immersed appropriately for long-term retention. Because the police officers’ jobs demands multi-tasking, their best suggestion was that “Both driving and MDT [Mobile Data Terminals] use should be mastered separately before being performed in combination” (Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 46). The continual assimilation of new technology being incorporated into the workforce establishes overload and creates the need for all resources to be utilized collectively. “If the attention cost of performance exceeds available resource, performance will suffer” (Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 47).




(Images from Anderson, Courtney, Plecas, & Chamberlin, 2005, p. 43-44).

One book we have been assigned to read for our class is called “Digital Divide”, edited by Mark Bauerlein, author of The Dumbest Generation. One particular essay by Marc Presnsky entitled, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants”, was a source of discussion in class. Because the brain structures of many students are different than the students in generations before them, they tend to surmise entitlement to receive information and engage in multiple activities simultaneously; nevertheless, this is untrue. Simply being raised in a society where technological advances are surging does not mean the students’ brains have been completely remapped. Professor Whitworth expounded in class on how our generation is, nevertheless, proud of this “accomplishment”. Individual interviews and public speaking used to be sought-after skills. Yet, it is actually very frightening to consider the reality of these skills becoming remiss.

It is detrimental to focus our achievements on outcomes when attempting to multi-task. "When you can and are impacting outcomes, the bi-product will not be as efficient”, Whitworth explained. “It isn’t of the same quality compared to if you weren’t multi-tasking.” He was questioned by a student if quantity is better than quality. While we may be finishing more tasks, is it really worth it? If the quality of the work is not satisfactory, the endeavors may have been in vain.
Multi-tasking is a “bi-product of society”, Whitworth continued. It is an ever-present part of our culture and is how we were molded and shaped. Although we would like to think “It’s individual decisions….it’s not”.

Digital detoxification must occur with the technology we use. Although it seems to be a necessity and fundamentally infused into our workload, it must be avoided. Our best work will take place through a state of reflection and time spent away from the computer, the television, iPhone, or the stereo. While we may think that “unplugging” from these agents will waste time and be unproductive, it will actually be beneficial in the long run. It is vital to eliminate bad habits of multi-tasking now before the damage is irreversible.

Considering Bauerlein’s opinion that I am a part of the dumbest generation, I agree with his argument to some extent, yet at the same time, I disagree. Our generation is not using of our resources satisfactorily in an attempt to make substantial contributions to society. As a result, we very much indeed represent a dumb and unintelligent generation. There is so much potential in this era, but it is imperative to change our patterns of behavior, particularly in the area of multi-tasking. If we can attain such a feat, our ideas will be better received, we will ensure more creativity, and we will gain more intellectual insight. Relationships will improve by encouraging more verbal, in-person dialogue. It is a blessing, as well as a curse, that our brains have cultivated in a dissimilar way compared to generations before us. Nevertheless, we must determine how to optimally make the best use of these agents. Since we recognize our learning is acquired in bursts and chunks, we should sharpen our focus on our studies at set intervals with breaks in between. This modification will help save time and energy in the future. I personally saw positive outgrowth today when I assumed this approach. My writings were more enhanced and refined. I felt confident and assured due to self-determination and designed discipline. We must hold each other accountable and depend on one another to facilitate the quality of the information as opposed to the quantity. Technology is profitable and expedient, but as with anything, must be wisely put into practice. While our society is changing in ways we cannot control, we can still learn to master our responses. Years from now, I want to look back and be able to disprove Bauerlein's theory that we are the Dumbest Generation.

Can 35 students at TCU defend their generation and argue they are not the "dumbest generation" due to their complete immersion within media technology and the digital age? Mark Bauerlein's book, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future, argues that those under the age of 30 are being negatively impacted by the Internet, Facebook, Youtube, and other media technology. Learn more at http://www.dumbestgeneration.com/home.html. We hope you will follow the students' postings and determine for yourself whether our future is in jeopardy.