One passage in which Bauerlein provides that makes a lot of sense is when he says, "You are six times more likely to know who the latest American Idol is than you are to know who the speaker of the US house is." I definitely agree with this, I am sure that at more than half of our school would feel it is true. This is a link for a quiz on all of the presidents http://www.sporcle.com/games/g/presidents. I bet people taking it cannot even get a third of it right. This is the kind of thing that, while many know is true, do not want to believe. I feel that this is why many Americans are underperforming in the intelligence category. They do not realize most of the time that what Bauerlein is saying is actually true, so they just keep going on in their non-intelligence related ways.
Another passage I agree with from the book is when Bauerlein says, "It almost seems that [users] go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense." I definitely feel that people go online so they can quickly learn the information and not actually read anything. It is a faster and easier way to learn what they need to know, and with teenagers lives being so hectic, it seems like a fine alternative to reading. What this is really doing though is only giving them the information they need to know for a specific task, and it does not actually engrave the information into their mind. Therefore, by only knowing the information short-term, teenagers really are not learning anything from the quick information online.
One passage I do not agree with from the book is when Bauerlein says, "The intellectual future of the United States looks dim." While I do agree some knowledge we used to know and cherish will be lost, I feel that there will be new forms of intellectuality for people in the future. People are more and more figuring out how to improve ideas we already have, and are figuring out many new things about the world. What Bauerlein does not get is that intelligence can change its meaning, and we are still getting more intelligent in many areas.
Another part of Bauerlein's argument that I do not agree with is when he says, "The verbal values of adulthood and adolescence clash, and to enter adult conditions, individuals must leave the verbal mores of high school behind. The screen blocks the ascent." The part I disagree with in the statement is the last part. Yes, I feel that the language of adults and teenagers are very different, but I do not feel this is because of technology. I feel this is because of how their friends talk and influence each other. Without technology, the way teenagers talk would still be very similar.
I do not think Bauerlein was successful in his argument, and while I think he did get his point across, it was not persuasive enough. First, almost his whole argument was based on credibility. Although some credibility can help strengthen an argument, it cannot be used as a whole argument. To make his argument strong, Bauerlein would have had to use more logic than he did. He said that his argument is true because of all the research, but research does not always show set facts. Also, I do not feel his argument was effective because he rarely looked at the counter-argument. Yes, teenagers are losing intelligence in some areas, but they are gaining a large amount of intelligence in other areas. If Bauerlein would have explained and rebutted the counter-argument a few more times, he would have been a lot more effective in his argument because people would see he knows all aspects of his argument. Overall, Bauerlein got his point across crystal clear, but could have used better techniques to get his point across.
No comments:
Post a Comment