At first I was dreading to read the book, "You Are Not a Gadget," by Jaron Lanier because I assumed it would be a boring technical book, that focuses on the ins and outs of the internet. Although, that may be enticing to some, for me the thought reading something like that made me want to fall asleep. However, after finally giving the book a chance and reading the first chapter, I must admit that I was really intrigued by what Lanier had to say.
A part from chapter 1 that stood out to me was when Lanier spoke about journalistic Stockholm syndrome. I found this part very interesting because I remember when the internet started to increase in popularity and everything from ordering food to reading novels can be read online; newspaper companies dreaded this new wave of digital media because it would hurt them economically. However, as Lanier points out, newspaper companies such as the New Yorks have been pushing for digital politics which will definitely hurt them and would be considered a smart idea. As a matter of fact this holds the potential to eliminate the newspaper industry entirely. Lanier's usage of the term Stockholm syndrome was definitely accurate because it should how naive the newspaper industry is behaving.
Another part from chapter 1 that stood out to me was when he spoke about the way technology changes people. I found this part interesting because from the reading Lanier portrayed technology as having a positive effect on people, while I on the other hand believe that technology actually has a negative effect on people. I agree with Lanier when he said "different media designs stimulate different potentials in human," but not for the reasons that he is inferring. Technology has made us dependent on it, for example we rely so much on our smart phones (BlackBerry's, iPhones, etc...) that we hardly use our brain to remember important phone numbers, besides 911. This is a perfect example of how technology has negatively changes us, from independent adults to dependent children.
Perhaps letting the gadget hold onto information like that just leaves more room for other knowledge that might prove useful in another context?
ReplyDeleteActually, no, you're right I should not have needed my phone to remember my ex-gf's phone number.
And not knowing the types of things I rely on my iPhone for makes me practically useless if/when it dies on me.
At the same time, I am very bad with time management and having it on my person at all times attached to my Google Calendar keeps me from losing track of the day in a way that I was incapable of before it.
It's a definite double edged sword...