Location: Question Formation and Analysis 1

Discussion: Question Formation & Analysis 1Reported This is a featured thread

Category: Discussion Forum / General Discussion
Showing 2 posts
leingles
leingles
Question Formation & Analysis 1
Sep 9 2008, 12:48 AM EDT | Post edited: Sep 9 2008, 12:48 AM EDT
1. What is the difference between a discovery and an invention? Did Edison discover or invent electricity? Are any forms of technology discovered or invented?
(The Big Switch - Chapter 2)

2. If "different generations have different was of knowing," how will future generations learn/think/know? Will their attention spans and abilities to communicate continue to plummet, or will they develop entirely different ways of processing information?
("On Stupidity")

3. President Bush is often criticized for his lack of verbal eloquence, but some claim that he "dumbs himself down" intentionally, so as not to go over anyone's heads, thus reaching a larger audience. What other examples of "dumbing down" can be found in today's society, and how has this method of communication contributed, hand-in-hand with the advancement of technology, to this generation's "stupidity"?
("On Stupidity") Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None

DelaneyParrish
1. RE: Question Formation & Analysis 1
Sep 11 2008, 12:11 AM EDT | Post edited: Sep 11 2008, 12:11 AM EDT
In class we talked about shows like the O’Reilly Factor and Countdown with Keith Olbermann as representations of a celebration of anti-intellectualism in America. I think that news programs like these are excellent examples of “dumbing down” in American society. Though these two “commentators” have no doubt, many opinions concerning important societal and political matters, the legitimacy of their opinions is something that often comes under harsh scrutiny. Who these men are that they deserve such a public place to spout their ideologies remains undetermined. Though they might be, in certain terms, considered well-educated, very few would consider them “intellectuals.” And yet, we could assume that technology has made their existence possible. Cable TV and, of course, the internet, allow so many more mediums for conversation, which, consequently, allow for so many more voices to participate in the conversation. If we only had newspapers, competition would be much more stringent, and only the most knowledgeable and legitimate voices would be present in the sphere of public debate.
However, what remains more illusive is whether or not these shows are “dumbed down” on purpose. I think it can be acknowledged that it is often beneficial to “dumb down” such programs. After all, cable network shows want to make money, and the way to do that is to develop a faithful viewership. If some brilliant political theorist from this or that university had his or her own cable news show, would it have as many viewers? Probably not, because the sad truth is that people want to watch shows they can follow and understand, and for the most part, people prefer to follow the news as it applies to their own lives, their own experiences, and their own social ideals. Do you find this valuable?