WRIT1152 Course Blog

After reading part of chapter two, it surprised me when I came across the third section. I have always thought that scientists where moral people who gained knowledge through studies, not back up previous knowledge with only supporting studies. Taubes says, at the bottom of page 24, “Believing that your hypothesis must be correct before all the evidence is gathered encourages you to interpret the evidence selectively.” So the problem falls on the preconceived notions of the scientists. If they have too much invested in their hypothesis, they will feel obligated to show evidence supporting their theory instead of find out the truth. It is also possible that a scientist will discredit another simply because there information doesn’t match up. I feel that there should be some sort of moral code for scientists to rely, that way they are forced to explore all possible solutions and the public isn’t given incorrect information. Scientists need to start working together to figure out the problem instead of fighting. Clearly if something has two sides, then neither side is one hundred percent correct and there has to be a compromise or collaboration until something else is discovered that is correct. The public has to be very careful about what they believe. How do we know who is being thorough with their investigation and who is just choosing information that fits?

Posted by Kathryn N at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I’m most surprised about how Keys and his supporters perceive healthiness. It seems that, in nearly all of the diet-health studies, Keys forgets about longevity and focuses only on cholesterol. To them, any reduction in cholesterol (seen in a saturated-fat reduction study) proves that saturated fats are unhealthy, regardless of whether or not cholesterol has any impact on overall health. Even the link between saturated fat and high cholesterol was unproven (the Minnesota Coronary Survey contradicted the Helsinki Study).

Taubes says that the blame for the widespread belief that saturated fat causes heart disease should partially rest with the media, because they took an easy way to get readers’ attention. The saturated-fat-causes-disease believers had a simple message, and they were able to get powerful results. Why didn’t the carbohydrates-cause-disease believers speak out? They could have made good points about diabetes and overall health, and shown that the saturated fat-disease link was tenuous.

Personally, I find it disappointing that the Minnesota Coronary Survey, the Framingham Heart Study, and other studies that contradicted Keys’ logic were not published until long after they were concluded. It seems that politics got in the way of science in these instances. Researchers such as Keys could have built ethos by recognizing contradictory evidence, but instead they tried to hide it. This shouldn’t happen, especially when people’s health and lives are at stake.

Posted by Eli W at 8:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

I was surprised to read and learn about all the tests that were done to find the real culprit that is responsible for increasing the risk of heart disease. The contradictory evidence presented by Keys' and company versus those who believe that there is so much more to heart disease then fats, is frustrating. In my opinion scientists are supposed to investigate situations as they are, without manipulating or skewing the data in anyway, but it seems that Keys has broken this rule. I guess it is easy to assume that all fats are bad for the heart, and that fats are the culprit for high cholesterol, which leads to heart failures or worse because we assume fats are unhealthy. Yet, Taubes' disclaimer against Keys' and friends findings, with other scientists conflicting results, makes me wonder what other suggestions that experts and scientists make that are incorrect. The issue with HRT is brought up again in Taubes' book, and reminds its readers how sometimes things that seem to make sense can sometimes cloud people from what is really true. How many half truths do we thrive on? How many harmful suggestions do we follow without thought because we trust unconditionally the scientist or expert who said it? Really how many, I want to know.

Posted by Sam K at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

One of the big questions this chapter raised for me was: Who is taking responsibility for the public’s misconception of weight loss? On page 23, paragraph three, Taubes writes “The proponents of Key’s hypothesis agreed in principle, but felt they had an obligation to provide their patients with the latest medical wisdom.” But, is having access to the latest medical knowledge healthy; and who should regulate research findings? In a culture obsessed with weight loss and the latest and greatest diet, should doctors be taking extra steps in the protection of research from the media that is only based on hypotheses? We have seen throughout time that the media’s understanding of research has great influence over the masses ; therefore, should we not take additional steps to hold the media accountable for their interpretations of medical research? Also, is there a better way for researchers to broadcast their findings in a way that is easier to understand and in less danger of being misinterpreted or blown out of proportion by the media? I believe these are really important questions to ask as we continue to read Taubes’ book because it may shed additional light on some of the issues surrounding the misconceptions of dieting.

Posted by Bess R. at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Reading the prologue of Good Calories, Bad calories made me think of my husband and why the Atkins diet worked for him. I had mentioned this a bit in class and that I was not willing to know anything about it or even consider trying it. He had suggested the diet of no sugar and no carbs for 2 weeks and limiting the amounts afterwards. It consisted of a high protein diet and seemed detailed about what you can and can’t eat and a sort of timeline to go by. I didn't take to this very quick and I put the diet in the trash and never considered it. So, in reading good calories, bad calories I thought cutting carbs might be a start. In the past my diets would consist of the 4 major food groups and exercise. Lots of exercise! I thought that plain was better and I would not add the dressings, salts, butter, and oils. I never took anything else into consideration and I think this book will give a better understanding of the food around me. While I will not dive right into the Atkins diet, I would like to know why that diet works for some and not others. I would like to know about any diet and why they work for certain people. I would also like to know how people with certain diseases could benefit from certain diets. I also would like to know how people with a certain lifestyle can become healthier. I this book will give me some insight about others and a diet that would be beneficial for them, just to know.

Posted by Tanna C at 7:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Reading the prologue for this book reminded me of the history of plate tectonics. Before the late 1950s it was widely accepted that the positions of the major landmasses of planet Earth was static. We all of course know that this is not the case as the movement of tectonic plates is widely studied today. The movement of tectonic plates was once the low-carb diet of its day. This theory was rejected and ridiculed by geologists even though it had substantial scientific basis. That was until 1956 with the important discovery of rocks with alternating magnetic orientations on the ocean floor. Finally there was proof geologists couldn't argue was Just physicists stepping outside stated subject matter. But the truth was that many people throughout the ages had formulated similar ideas. Since the 17th century many reasoned that the continents were once connected while playing puzzle with a map of the world. Additional things such as fossil record and soil similarities discovered in the 19th and early 20th century loaned credence to the idea. This for me marks the importance and necessity of listening to controversial ideas in the face of established and unmoving accepted fact.

Posted by Chad L at 11:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So Taubes is going against the grain of conventional wisdom by stating that fats aren't as bad as we think and carbs aren't as good as we think. I'm semi excited to read this book (It's sooo big).

I grew up not knowing anything about my nutrition, and I blame my parents. No really, I do, and they'll humbly take the blame; they didn't impart good nutrition on me because they didn't really know what it was. They had the beliefs that most parents do: If it's a nasty vegetable, it' good for you. Dripping in grease is bad. Bread is good to point. Fruit is good. Burgers bad. Butter and Fats bad. Sweets neutral, to a point. Drink lots of water. Eggs good, or are they bad? Point is, they didn't know what they were doing. Thankfully, my whole family has now done their homework and we now know what's good an what's not. Don't eat when you're not hungry and take the stairs instead of the escalator. Go for a jog/swim every now and then, and you DON'T need seconds or thirds.

Carbs gives you energy doesn't it? If you intake energy like crazy and don't expend it (via exercise) that energy gets unused and stored as fat preserves right? I think so. I feel like Taubes is going to provide plenty of lovely statistics (...TeChNOPOLY!?!?) about how we eat more carbs but we're fatter and he's going to somehow tie that in with his thesis. I hope he touches base on how people don't know what exercise is anymore and they think spending 60 minutes a week on an elliptical machine at a YMCA somehow constitutes as being active. I'm big on activity.

Posted by Luis C at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

The rest of these blog posts cover the content Taubes' prologue in detail. That horse is dead, and doesn't need to be beaten anymore.

Taubes is a very engaging writer, and I blasted through the prologue and first chapter without setting down my book. Partly, this is because I love non-fiction science writing. That is an important reason why I took this class, and why I enjoy it. But Taubes manages to avoid many of the pitfalls that lesser writers stumble into. In a nutshell, it's fun to read. More specifically: I enjoyed how the anecdotes were told, the research was tight and comprehensive, and he avoided the cardinal sin of "dry technical writing". I am also glad that he refrains from sensationalism. His thesis is a bold one, but it is presented in a very thoughtful manner. Example: In the first chapter (yes, I know I'm skipping ahead here), he presents a very good anecdote about President Eisenhower's health troubles. Immediately afterward, however, he presents a caveat to the reader: a single anecdote should never be evidence onto itself. Taubes thoroughly presents not only evidence to support his thesis, but reasons why his evidence supports it. More importantly than that, he actively dismisses evidence that would otherwise support his position, but which he does not consider credible. I admire this method of presenting your argument. It serves to further educate the reader about the nuance of the issues.

Posted by Daniel B at 12:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

After reading the prologue to Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories," all that I came away with is not knowing what to believe. It was very surprising that this controversy on what diet is the best has been going on since the early 1800's, but it is also a little disheartening to know that this controversy hasn't been solved. Banting's idea of eating a diet consisting strictly of meat and cutting out carbohydrates was for a long time the most widely accepted and was viewed as the healthiest diet. However after the fat hypothesis was introduced in the 1970's that said saturated fat, the fat in meat and animal products, put people at a higher risk of developing heart disease, a diet that consisted of a large portion of carbohydrates became viewed as the healthier diet. This information leaves me with one simple question; what should we believe? It is frustrating to me and surely many others knowing that there is not a right or healthy diet, and I am hoping that Taubes will do a good job explaining the benefits and downfalls of the specific diets, and I am looking forward to what he has to say.

Posted by Tyler E at 10:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I am extremely excited to read this book because nutrition is intriguing to me. It is interesting to hear about all the different weight loss methods and the strategies they offer. Losing weight is hard. It takes dedication, self control, and a positive outlook. It’s tough to say what diets work the best because everyone is different. I believe that maintaining a healthy weight is really just a science. You have to experiment and observe what works with your body. Knowing what foods make you gain weight and the amount of calories you need to maintain a healthy weight are important factors to consider. However, I do think that eating a diet with lean meats, fiber, lots of vegetables, and a low intake of processed foods, sugar, and refined carbohydrates is extremely helpful in dropping those extra pounds. Carbohydrates are not bad, it’s just knowing what kinds to eat. Losing weighting should not involve a diet but a life style change. Once you lose the weight, going back to your old eating habits will not keep the weight off. Taubes seems like he has done his research and I am ready to hear what he has to say about eating habits and diets.

Posted by Lana H at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

This book will be very interesting for me, especially since obesity has taken over a few of my family members. In the beginning of the prologue, Taubes begins addressing different approaches to dieting and reasons why or why not each one of them actually works. Knowing the positive and negative effects of the hypotheses presented in this book will definitely encourage me to spread the facts to my family.

Diets involving calorie counting, carbohydrate counting, and other typical methods are legitimate ways of controlling one’s weight. I feel all of them will work, but they won’t be ideal for everybody. Stating this, the one strategy I think will work with anyone is simply portion control and exercising, whether it’s yoga, walking, pilates, weight lifting, and so forth.

Diets involving weight loss pills (or what I call hocus pocus pills) are the worst ways to attempt losing weight. If these pills truly reduced body weight without dieting or exercise, everyone would be skinny. Obviously, they don’t work, and I hate watching the commercials. Same goes for Nutrisystem. If it worked so well, nobody would be overweight. Even if it did work, you couldn’t eat it for the rest of your life, so the weight would pile back on as soon as you stopped consuming the Nutrisystem foods. There is no way Marie Osmond eats boxed, fake looking food everyday without feeling nauseated.

Posted by Allison L. at 9:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The way in which Taube chooses to analyze the proposed effects of different dieting methods by examining contradictory views of each method is bold. While reading his arguments, Taube stressed one point that I agree with which was that although research is regarded as a primary source, this doesn’t mean that it the research is always reliable or trustworthy because there can be misconceptions in science. Every time someone mentions that “research shows this….or that” I personally do not put full faith into what is being proposed especially, if what is being addressed is fairly new. Some people put such full faith into science without thinking of the implications of what is actually being said or argued. There is also the fact that so much trust is bestowed on technology and in science that people fail to investigate further for evidence regarding the subject at hand or even if there is a sufficient amount of historical evidence to support the claims being made. We see this happening everyday in medicine for example where people are often misdiagnosed especially when it comes to cancer since it is a relatively new concept to most of us. I can think of at least two people that I indirectly know that went to see a doctor due to certain medical troubles they were having. In both cases patients asked the doctor if there would be a possibility that these issues they were experiencing were related to cancer and the doctor told them no. Both patients and the parties that were with them failed to question further the authority of the doctors’ diagnostic advise or at least demand that testing be done as evidence to confirm otherwise. The doctors assumed based on their previous cases and observations that there would be absolutely no chances of the persons having cancer. the issue is how did they know for certain that was the case especially since cancer is such a mysterious and relatively new ordeal to us? As a result, both patients were correct from the beginning in their speculation of whether or not their causation to their problems are a result of cancer because further down the road both were diagnosed with cancer. The doctor failed to catch the early stage of the cancer that it developed into a much more serious stage. Thus, this goes to show that since doctors were seen as a primary source that could never be wrong, they actually were. There scientific background had misconceptions at the matter in hand so it carried a bias. They never opened up the opportunity to consider cancer as a possibility from the beginning but used it as a last resort. Thus the doctors were misconceived about cancer and the patients were mislead by the credibility that they fully bestowed in each doctor’s diagnosis.

Posted by Kisha D. at 9:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think Taubes presents a very interesting prologue. It really makes you think back to all the different diets that have come, gone, and are still around. Not only that, but I also was reminded of all the different diet suggestions that plague the news. A glass or a cup of this today will cure X and Y, but in a few months it might be bad for you. I guess I never really knew that this sort of tug-of-war between fat and carbohydrates had existed for so long. To me it seemed like a relatively new topic of research, but as Taubes pointed out it has been going on for hundreds of years. I am eager to read what Taubes presents to us, and see what kind of information he presents. I would like to know how he can scientifically (if that is the route he is going) can show that carbs are bad and that the common notion of fat being unwanted in a diet is incorrect considering all the scientific backing for it. Especially considering that Taubes said that people who promoted fat heavy diets primarily did so through anecdotes and personal testimonies. In any case I am looking foreword to what lies ahead.

Posted by Devon C at 8:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

After reading the prologue, I found it to be more interesting then I had anticipated. Going from the title of the book and the summary on the back I was not immediately interested in the subject of the book, and if I saw this book in a store or a library I would not pick it up. While reading I found it a little difficult to keep the changes in acceptance in what caused obesity straight, I was not aware that dieting had such a long history and that the South Beach diet was actually a diet. I assumed the South Beach diet was a marketing ploy to make more money and never knew that it had roots dating back to the nineteenth century.

The last couple of paragraphs I really enjoyed. I have never seen an author state that the view he is writing about could be controversial and then go into detail about the sources he used and list the background he has in the subject. I could be totally wrong but the last paragraphs make the book more approachable and from those paragraphs Taubes is signaling that his book will not be a rant but a structured argument that will be enjoyable to read.

Posted by NatC at 8:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Diets have been around for a while and a few of them, like the Atkins diet or the South Beach diet, were extremely popular with a lot of people because they seemed to work. In my opinion each person is unique and not every diet plan will work for them. I believe smaller balanced portions and more exercise should do the trick for most, but that's usually not what people want to hear. Most want the easy way out, like taking a pill to lose the weight. Just about everyone knows someone who has been on a "yo-yo diet" - that is reach their goal and start eating the way they used to and gain all of it, and sometimes more, back again. Hard work and dedication to your diet is essential and you can't just quit once you reach your goal. It's something that must continue indefinitely in order not to gain the weight back. This will make for a very interesting read.

Posted by Ashley L at 7:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

My first taste of Taubes' writing was an enjoyable experience. Although, initially, I became greatly distressed over all the negative facts that were presented about rice, I cannot deny his effective writing style. Taubes uses a lot of research finds, as well as his own personal credentials, to support his arguments, and thus build up his ethos. Due to his consistent use of references not only is his writing credible, but also highly intriguing. The important points that Taubes emphasizes in the prologue goes against societies common views on what a healthy nutritious diet really is. Yet, the references that he uses helps to establish a strong case for his claims. In addition, Taubes' claims shows how readily people accept scientific advice because it was said by an "expert," without really knowing the in-depth facts of the issue. The prologue reinforces the idea that people's trust in what science says is absolute, as long as the claims seem reasonable. I have heard many times that fats and sugars are key players in obesity, and while I did hear people mention how carbohydrates can also lead to health issues, the majority of experts said otherwise. So here I sit eating my bowl of rice, too good to let go.

Posted by Sam K at 7:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I found this article online and thought it was a great look at how ridiculous diet fads have been in the past. God only knows what new fads we will come up with in the near to distant future.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29795998/

Posted by Bess R. at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My feeling towards healthy eating is that it is different for everyone. I think the reason why there are so many different diet crazes is because what works for one person is not what works for another. I also believe that diets aren’t always the right thing to do if you want to loss weight. Sometimes people can lose 30 or 40 pounds, but diets are not easy to keep up and as soon as you stop the diet, the weight is gain right back. Most people have to actually change their lifestyle before they can lose weight and actually keep it off. You can’t expect to stay healthy if you diet for 4 weeks then go back to the way you were eating before. For myself, I feel that the best way for me to be healthy is to have a good balance of foods. I also try and eat food that has not been overly processed, for instance, I will choose fresh fruit over canned fruit or whole wheat bread vs. white bread. I am very excited to read Taubes’s book. I love reading about nutrition, but I never seem to have time for it. It will be interesting to read more about Taubes’s ideas on healthy eating and what evidence he has found for the best way to regulate your weight.

Posted by Kathryn N at 1:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

After reading the Prologue to “Good Calories, Bad Calories”, I am interested to read the rest of the book. Nutrition is something I am very interested in and I like to hear other people’s perspectives on what is healthy. I like that Taubes uses science and case studies to back up his ideas because there are so many different opinions out there for what constitutes a healthy diet. However In my nutrition class we learned that a low fat diet that balances all of the food groups is healthy. Also that the best way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise more. This is completely different from Taubes’ argument that exercise and a low fat diet are not necessarily the keys to weight loss. His argument makes sense because he says that eating less fat just causes people to eat more of other things such as sugars and starches to satisfy their cravings. It is healthier to maintain ones weight to prevent diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. I am interested to see more of the evidence that he gives to prove that it does not matter how much you eat, but what you eat that will make you unhealthy or fat. It is hard to believe that this is true. I would think that eating excess calories of just about anything other than vegetables would make you fat.

Posted by Liz K. at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I think postman makes a valid argument in stating that history is an essential aspect in giving life to humanity meaning. It's true the most important aspect to the subject at matter in a wide variety of topics is the idea of being able to make connections. Making connections in any route of life seems to me the most valuable idealism in driving humanity. People desire to know who they are and where they have come from as postman says in order to comprehend our reasoning to our thoughts. It's essential to us to know where these thoughts of ours are coming from. For instance, I find this to be particularly true especially when it came to the presidential election for obama and the opinion of those f my ethnic and cultural background. It had never occurred to me that people that many immigrants from Guyana would be against the election of president obama who appeared to me as an highly educated man who had effective warrants to all his arguments and actions. If anything because he was considered a minority in this country I thought previous citizens of Guyana would be happy to have someone of minority achieving such great lengths and bend over backwards just to see it happen. However, the more I started listening to Guyanese people's opinions the more it became evident that the situation was quite the opposite. Intrigued by the response of Guyanese people from all over the world, I learned that the majority of the people where not supporters of obama because of the history of Guyana. Interestingly enough majority of the Guyanese Indian population were opposed to having obama as a president because of the traumatizing experience of Guyana having a black president in the past. It turns out that during the leadership of this president, Indian people suffered from all types of abuse including violent actions such as rape. Because Indian people faced such discrimination from the black people as soon as a black person was elected president, this historical event was a enough of a valid reasoning to persuade Guyanese people in the U.S. to not vote for obama because he is black and therefore could not rule a country. Out of curiosity I asked a family member why they are applying this historical context to a country of different cultural, social and most of all historical context the response I got was, "Have you ever seen one successful black president throughout this entire world. Tell me or show me which black person has ever ruled a country successfully...that's right they can't...I have never seen one successful black person run a country and obama's going to make a mess of things!" Based of this response I learned that the historical context in which you belong to has such a gret influence to the reasoning’s of your thoughts. Me being raised under a completely different historical, social, and cultural context changes my approach to this subject of Guyana's historical context but my overall conclusion to the idea is the historical background of one country can't be applied to another because of the circumstance of completely different historical contexts and the present context of situations now.
In stating this, I believe postman is right in saying that history in every aspect, or subject of matter in our life is foundation in our continuous thrive for intelligence.

Posted by Kisha D. at 7:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Postman’s ending to his book was very interesting. I agree with Postman that history is something that should be taught in all classes. I am currently in a global environmental education class and we frequently have discussions about grade school classes and how they often over lap each other. I feel that a new curriculum should be developed that allows teachers to teach all of the courses together instead of having math, art, science, english, and history separate. Like Postman, I also feel that other things need to be taught to students. While he felt that semantics should be taught, I feel that topics such as environmental sciences should be taught to students. Environmental science is something that is normally taught in a typical science class, if it is even taught at all. I feel that it is something that can be incorporated into all areas of learning, not just sciences. I am sure there are many more subjects out there just like these that should be taught to students. I want students to be able to gain knowledge and understanding, and not simply learn facts.

Posted by Kathryn N at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Overall, I think that Technopoly was a powerful book. At first, I continually disagreed with the points he brought up. As I read on, I had to admit that his concerns were significant. With the last chapter, Postman significantly boosted his ethos. He finally explained how we can keep ourselves from sliding too far into mindless “technopoly,” something that I had been waiting to hear. I think that what we interpreted as a bitter, negative tone could have been easily avoided if Postman had offered constructive comments and solutions throughout the book. This chapter was by far the most optimistic.

In this chapter, Postman writes about the value of education and the reason why we should be educated. His conclusion is that education should be pursued not for one’s country, one’s own personal gain, or for immediate “technical” results. Instead, Postman says, education should be an opportunity to consider and celebrate the progress humans have made. This perspective on education is unique, interesting, and positive, and it’s a good way to conclude the book.

Posted by Eli W at 9:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The book was going in this certain direction though out its first 10 chapters and then BAM, Postman says we should teach more history and start caring about "religion" again. I will not say this seems inconsistent as he does say the word "Technopoly" a couple times in this last chapter, thereby showing us that he is still Neil Postman and chapter 11 hasn't been hijacked by someone else, but a man with his intelligence could probably so a better job summing up his warrant as to why doing all this would prevent a Technopoly.
He confessed that he is a critic that tells us all the problems but doesn't hold many answers, so is he telling us that these are his answers? The qualities for individuals he gives near the beginning of this chapter, to me, basically sum up to "Work hard your whole life and turn off your TV." After that, with his rant on education, I didn't even really feel like he was providing a solution to the problem he proposed. Who's to say we couldn't learn more history and religion and still fall into Postman's definition of a Technopoly. I don't feel like any answer has been provided. And if no answer is available as to how to prevent or stop a Technopoly from happening, then Postman's whole book is sort of useless.
Now, onto my paper.

Posted by Luis C at 9:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

From my posts I’m pretty sure I came off as having a pretty low opinion of Postman and his ideas. My problem with the book was that I thought Postman kept repeating the same idea over and over again with each chapter. I think this is rather annoying, and I found myself thinking why was he repeating himself as I was reading. In the final chapters I realized why he did this and finally started to comprehend his point more. The final chapter was what I was looking for, enough of the examples of why efficiently is changing our culture, he finally showed ideas how to confront the issue. The final chapter tied everything together and still keeping to his main point, gave some great suggestions which even a decade later are valid. When Postman talks about high school students not being exposed to classic writing or classic literature or physics I am kind of confused. Since to graduate I had to take classes in all of those subjects. From that I assumed that all schools had similar requirements and if this isn’t true then I had a better high school education then I thought I had. Or some of Postman’s suggestions are making there way into school curriculum in the past decade.

Posted by NatC at 9:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Neil Postman did a great job summarizing the entire book. He brought all of his ideas together, especially when he talked about the qualities of the resistance fighter. A person with these characteristics and understandings will recognize every aspect of our lives; they will know the reasons why things occurred and where the ideas originated. For example, many students in high school today are only taught of famous inventors, such as Isaac Newton, and their hypotheses they created many years ago. What they aren’t taught is where the ideas came from and what was entailed to find them. I agree that history should be taught within every subject, but the thought of doing it now seems a little too substantial to change the current curriculum. The downside is some subjects may be excluded in order to fit this proposal. How long would it take to complete a Biology course in order to accommodate the history as well? I would love to learn about how scientists initially found DNA, viruses, nuclei, and even how chemists proposed the atom, but time is the only restraint. However, it doesn’t mean this kind of information is unavailable, we just need the motivation to find it on our own time.

Posted by Allison L. at 9:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I was a little confused at how Postman decided to end the book. I felt like it kind of went in a different direction then everything that came before it. Now I’m not saying that his arguments weren’t valid, rather I just felt that this chapter didn’t really fulfill my expectations of how it would end. I was expecting Postman to end by saying that all we needed to do was question the technology in our lives, be aware of how it changes our culture. I understood what Postman was trying to do, but I felt like it didn’t really fit. I thought the idea of preserving our history and culture through education was a valid point and something I actually agree with. It just felt weird considering that he had so many negative things to say about the education system. But what really to the cake for me was talking about American values and how we should never forget what our country is possible of. The thing that really seemed out of place here was that his book didn’t focus on America but the world as a whole. Again his argument is well structured but it seems to stick out. Perhaps I’m not seeing the connection but when I read the last chapter, I felt it didn’t really do justice to the rest of the book.

Posted by Devon C at 8:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I like how Postman summarizes his last chapter in Technopoly. He brings up many excellent points that need to be readdressed into the education system and the minds of society. In school students must learn about their history in science, literature, music, and art because they can't afford to lose their past. If you don’t understand your history, then what is present will never be appreciated. Society worries about improving and always out doing their competitor. This is good on some levels, but we can’t get distracted from what is really important. Postman quotes, “Knowledge is not a fixed thing but a stage in human development, with a past and a future” (190). This is an extremely important concept to realize. Postman is not bashing technology and the benefits it proves. He is simply bringing to our attention the things it may be destroying that will have negative outcomes. Technology is taking away from the basics of learning. We should not rely on technology to fill in the gaps that are being stripped from education and society’s mindset. Overall, Postman provides sound points that I have never really thought about.

Posted by Lana H at 7:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I chose this technology because it is on the horizon of revolutioning the dairy industry forever. It is a technology I will need to be familiar with if I chose to stay in the agriculture field for my career.
Genomics is gene mapping. Scientists are able to locate the specific genes on chromosomes and discover if they are superior compared to others in their breed and age group. This will save time. Without genomics, it takes at least 5 years to test out a bull for breeding purposes and to get a reliable proof on him. After this, we find out if he is superior or not. This current process doesn't leave the bull with many years left to produce semen for artificial insemenation.
I am worried about genomics becoming acceptable in the human population where it gets to the point where couples are able to select the genes their offspring have.

Posted by achen007 at 7:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

After all of Postman's warnings and charges against blindly advancing technology, as well as our complete reliance in it, I found that the last chapter of his book summarized his point well. Although I had initially thought Postman was in complete disagreement with technological advancement, after reading the book in its entirety, I realized that he instead wants people to know where they are headed before they dive head first into something. He wants a focused goal and not random advancements with technology that has already caused so much harm in multiple cultures because of people's infatuation with the reassurance and convenience it provides. The author's suggestion in teaching students the history of subjects is an interesting idea. I think if this method was used then certain subjects would not be seen as a chore needed to be accomplished on a growing check-list, but rather, something that does not begin and end with a course, but instead continues on through life. If we, as students and even our teachers, have this mindset maybe we will become more aware of what has changed, and what was discarded for the sake of technological and scientific advancement.

Posted by Sam K at 6:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Everyday, as I take the Campus Connector to the St. Paul campus and back, I stare out the window on the north side of the bus and watch the rail yard. You see, I have a fascination with trains. I even bought a train simulator computer game at Target for $7.50. Trains are one of those things that people take for granted these days, albeit one of many. The complexity and versatility of the behemoths are often underplayed in the goings on of everyday life for most of us, but without them we wouldn't have many of the everyday essentials that we need, such as oil, coal (for energy), and corn syrup. Trains haul everything. Cattle, cars and everything in between are shipped across the country using trains on a daily basis, as well as hundreds of thousands of shipping crates from around the world.

It also gave us the opportunity to travel across the country in the 1800's by means other than covered wagon. The locomotive was one of the original modes of transportation, and the steam engine paved the way for the internal combustion engine commonly used today. Of course, lost in translation was the cross country travel in the covered wagon, but that was not the highlight of many people's days. However, it connected our country and our world like nothing before, and made our world much more productive. It truly revolutionized the world.

Posted by Drew P at 11:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I chose to write about the remote control and its effects on our culture. I decided on this topic because some people don’t realize how the “clicker” has impacted our lives, and I’m interested in how the remote actually works and how it has changed over the years. The use of a remote would enable one to change the channel, volume, color, and other features while remaining seated in the chair. This prevented the need to get up to change the channel, thus made the life of a person a little bit lazier. There are negative effects from the use of remotes and weight gain is one of the most drastic outcomes.

The first wireless television remote was made public in 1955! Some operated by the use of sound waves (instead of infrared rays), so there was an incident where a toy xylophone actually changed the channels on the TV. As technology advanced, a universal remote was created, an object that could control the TV as well as many other devices.

I’m not quite sure if I should focus strictly on the use of the remote for the television or if I should incorporate other important uses of the remote, such as for military purposes, space explorations, entertainment, unlocking/starting the car and other reasons. Any suggestions? Either way, the remote has had a significant impact on our culture.

Posted by Allison L. at 11:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The process of cannery has been a wonder to me. I have never canned or know the process of cannery. So, I wanted to learn about canned food. It is also a big part of my religion. We are encouraged to have food storage for our family and many people around me are so familiar with cannery yet, I know very little about it. So, this type of technology got me interested to go back in history and get a idea. It seems that back in 1795, Napoleon Bonaparte offered a 12,000-Frac prize to anyone who could figure out how to preserve food. It was from this offer that, 14 years later, a man named Nicolas Appert devised a way and won the prize. He had experimented with heating food in sealed jars although, he did not know how he was able to perserve the food. It wasn't until 50 years later that another person was able to explain the preservation process. This introduced the way to perserve food and held even after the refridgerator and freezer. Canned foods are widely used today and very useful in conserving food. It has changed the way that people view homecooked meals. Today, we see canned food headings or marketing labels with homecooked style, country style, or just like mom's on them. This seems to have made canned food the norm for home cooking. Canned food has changed the way many people prepare home cooked foods. Canned vegetables are cooked and making a vegetable soup could take less than 5 minutes. It just seems that it has made it so people want the fastest meals. Should we enjoy cooking and take the time to prepare our meals and add the extra time to clean, cut, shred, chop, and cook our food? Or it it better to get that quick meal to spend more time with our families doing other things? Canned food has made our access to food a lot easier. We end up relying on company's to provide the food we buy. We don't grow food anymore and canned food keeps longer than fresh. While it has made cooking faster, it seems to have taken away a large part of the cooking enjoyment.

Posted by Tanna C at 11:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's something that few of you ever think about, and fewer think about how it has affected us. Electricity itself is an incredibly important development, but I think a more interesting case study in how technology affects society is the electrical grid. It is one of the most defining aspects of the modern lifestyle: all your appliances, all your toys and amenities have a little wire running from them into an outlet. It gives us the magic energy that fuels our lifestyle, and yet it binds and immobilizes us. The key here, again, is not the fact of electricity, but how we get our electricity. We don't power our factories with generators, nor are the lights to our house driven by batteries. This basic resource is centrally managed, and distributed via the electrical grid. While this has many advantages, our society and culture evolved around the limitations of this infrastructure.

Posted by Daniel B at 10:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The technology I selected was the caller ID on modern telephones. This technology allowed for people to see who was calling them before answering. This of course made it possible for an individual to decide who we wanted to talk to, or not talk to for that matter. One aspect of our life that I think this has changed is polling. Instead of a pollster being able to get a fairly normal sample, they are limited to only the people who choose to answer. I know that in my house at least, we never answer the phone unless it is someone we know, or want to talk to. It also helps us avoid people we don’t want to talk to, like creditors or telemarketers. I general, I think the caller ID has changed how we communicate with each other. We now have the ability to avoid who we talk to, in a way making our society much less social in my opinion. There is no mystery of finding out who is on the other end of the line when your phone is ringing.

Posted by Devon C at 10:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

For the topic for my paper, I’m considering discussing the technologies of farming, specifically the tractor. For years, agricultural production was held back by the availability of labor. People could only grow what they had the man- or animal power to plant and harvest. With the invention of the tractor, farmers could produce more food. But, to stay competitive, each farmer had to keep up with the latest technologies and work longer hours. To finance new technology, farmers became heavily indebted to banks. As I started my research, I saw that one book described farming as becoming less of a “lifestyle” and more of a “business.”
As the number of jobs in the countryside was reduced and food prices declined, cities were able to grow. With the growth of cities, Americans lost their connection to the land. The technology of the tractor delivered us into the grasp of what Postman would call “technopoly.” We want everything to be mechanized, standardized, and immediate.
*Fordson, Farmall, and Poppin’ Johnny: A History of the Farm Tractor and Its Impact on America

Posted by Eli W at 9:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Why did you choose this technology?
The technology I chose as a topic is the fridge.
I chose this technology primarily because it's such a simple item in our everyday lives but has so much significance and a vital role in our lives. It’s a technology used by most on a daily basis. The fridge is a technological advancement used in a daily basis.

What did it replace or augment or introduce into our lives?
It enhanced the abilities of biological sciences particularly lab work and allowed for us to conduct procedures. As a result it also enhanced medicine, reduced the likelihood of obtaining illnesses, and those prolonged life for all those who possess this technology. It also increased our awareness in public health not just in terms of improving our diet but also in terms of being more cautious with parasites, bacteria, & food born illness from contamination. Consequentially, Standards and regulations were put into practice by the U.S. Department and Agriculture and the FDA. Thus, one can not simply eat anything they desire or bring foreign items into the country without getting past the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in general which enforces these standards. Lastly, it has become momentous to the overall organization of family life that is often associated with emotions of individuals and is a centralized technology used to keep the family organized.

And because we're following Postman, what effect did this technology have on the culture or the way that we see or understand certain things in the world?

It changed our perception of WORK, what we consider our daily routines compared to that of the past where life was built on the capabilities and abilities of families to agriculture.

Posted by Kisha D. at 9:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

My paper topic is going to be sexed semen in dairy cattle. Historically, all heifers born in a herd would be replacements for the older cows. Now, with the use of sexed semen, a farmer is able to pick and choose his genetically superior cows and use sexed semen to breed that cow to have a heifer calf to be a replacement. The chance of having a heifer without the technology is about 50/50, but using sexed semen it is nearly 100%. Though this is a recent technology, it is already having major effects on the dairy industry. More heifers born in a herd mean lower heifer replacement prices (if the farmer is selling his excess heifers to other farmers), more milk being supplied exceeding demand resulting in lower milk prices in the store, herd expansions are more likely because of more replacements being born. The use of sexed semen will have many positive effects along with many negative ones. The technology is changing the way farmers breed their cattle resulting in more genetically superior cows able to produce more milk.

Posted by Ashley L at 6:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The technology that I chose to investigate and to write about is the electric rice cooker. I chose this technology because I eat a lot of rice, everyday actually, and so I thought it would be important to learn about the historical aspects of the greatest technology ever created. In addition, although I was born and raised in America, I still struggled with the cultural differences that existed between American and Korean lifestyles, thus I chose the rice cooker because of its wide use in America as well as Korea.
The introduction of the electric rice cooker made cooking easier and much more efficient, but while quantity of rice cooked increased the quality decreased. For those who don't have a rice cooker it is like the difference between using a stove versus a microwave to cook. In my paper I want to talk about the loss of quality of food for the sake of efficiency. Also, I want to address the loss of a parent child bonding opportunity that occurred through the teaching of how to prepare rice, as well as its cultural significance. The similarity is like a father teaching his son how to shave over using an electrically powered shaver that needs no instruction. So, I want to focus on how American culture, as well as Korean, replaced efficiency for quality, as well as made technology so acceptable and easy that everyone is expected to use it without instruction. Although I need to further investigate this, I believe that there is also a health related issue that also is caused by the introduction of the electric rice cooker.

Posted by Sam K at 6:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The topic I decided to use for the impact of technology paper is penicillin. Alexander Fleming, a British scientist, discovered penicillin when he was working with the bacteria Staphylococcus. He noticed a mold substance was preventing the growth of the bacteria. This mold was a species of Penicillium and was producing a substance that could kill bacteria. He named his discovery, penicillin (Nester 496). Penicillin has changed the health field tremendously, improving its mechanisms for defeating infections. During World War II penicillin helped save many lives. The improvements it has provided are impossible to ignore. However, penicillin has changed our culture and the mind set of society. It has created a cushion or a simple solution for an illness. Society has decreased their concern about taking care of their bodies. Eating healthy and exercising has become less of a worry because many other mechanisms are available for treating illnesses. The increasing frequencies of prescriptions are becoming a problem because bacteria are now changing and becoming resistant to penicillin. This is a huge problem and an issue that society needs to become more aware of. Eating healthy and exercising will not prevent every disease, but it will help with a person’s overall health. This may eliminate a few trips to the doctor’s office.

Nester, Eugene W., Denise G. Anderson, Evans C. Roberts, and Martha T. Nester. Microbilology: A Human Perspective. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007.

Posted by Lana H at 6:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think that I am going to write my paper on the European windmill. I am interested in windmills because I am an environmental education major and we often talk about renewable energies. However, we never talk about its history and I have always been curious about it. I haven’t done much research yet, but so far I have found out that the windmill was introduced to Europe in the twelfth century. The European windmill was adapted from a windmill that was originally invented in eastern Persia. The European windmill was used for grinding corn into flour. The wind power replaced the use of water and horse power. Later on the windmill was also adapted for drainage. So far I haven’t found how it has affected society, but I can guess that it improved their ability to farm more efficiently. If anyone has any suggestions, let me know. I plan to do more research before I start the paper for Friday.

Posted by Kathryn N at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I felt as though Postman’s chapter on “Scientism” pinpointed the greatest threat to humanity in relation to technology: our willingness to believe in the profound nature of science. My father and I have spoken many times throughout my young life about our respect for those who are willing to go against the scientific status quo to pursue a life devoted to a G-d. Looking back at my own life I consider times where I willingly accepted social science explanations for the feelings I had in synagogue. My faith was reduced to a feeling of community and my gullibility (brainwashing). Why has it become so easy for science to question our moral foundations? Who gave science the authority? Why has it come to the point where we must come up with a rationality behind every action we take or every belief we hold dear? If I want to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, how dare you question my decision? These are questions I believe everyone should be asking when they are confronted by “scientific” studies of human nature and intelligence. We must remember that just because science presents fact, it does not mean that we need to alter our lives around it (individuality and humanity will in many ways be lost).

Posted by Bess R. at 5:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's something that few of you ever think about, and fewer think about how it has affected us. Electricity itself is an incredibly important development, but I think a more interesting case study in how technology affects society is the electrical grid. It is one of the most defining aspects of the modern lifestyle: all your appliances, all your toys and amenities have a little wire running from them into an outlet. It gives us the magic energy that fuels our lifestyle, and yet it binds and immobilizes us. The key here, again, is not the fact of electricity, but how we get our electricity. We don't power our factories with generators, nor are the lights to our house driven by batteries. This basic resource is centrally managed, and distributed via the electrical grid. This is not a bad thing (central produced power is much cheaper than making it yourself), but much of the way our society functions is structured around the capabilities and limitations of this infrastructure.

Posted by Daniel B at 5:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For my topic I chose to take a look at the introduction of the musket, the arquebus, or the hand cannon. I also considered looking at the matchlock or flintlock or even a shotgun or the lever action rifle. I chose topics closely related to firearms because information alone can only go so far in the take down of tyrants. Firearms such as these replaced such technologies as the bow and arrow, the crossbow, the javelin, and the spear. They also allowed us to hunt with greater ease by reducing the learning curve of weapons used in the process. However, these important gains came at a still yet unknown price. Even though some formulations come close, the exact formula for Damascus steel is still not entirely known. The properties of layered or bimetallic armor were recently rediscovered from a once unknown manuscript. And the once coveted Japanese samurai sword is only important for symbolic reasons. The only reason why bow and arrow or cross bows are in use today is because of the loose hunting restrictions. I will admit that they have other uses but they are very limited and specific.

Posted by Chad L at 4:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My chosen technology for this project, I am 95% sure, is that of "Barbed-Wire." This idea came to me when Greg had mentioned doing the railroads. I was very interested in doing the rail-roads but since I wrote a paper on that in high school, I thought I would be better off learning some new stuff. I am also guessing that many people before me have chosen rail-roads and that barbed-wire fencing is a bit more underrated.

What I like most about barbed-wire is that it is so simple. Intertwined metal wiring and posts. That is all it is. Yet, it completely changed the structure of the west. 25 years after it was invented, it had completely ended the Old West. Nearly all open ranges had been enclosed as private property. It allowed for better farming and helps reduce the erosion of the open-range land, but I am not yet sure what was all lost. I know that the rugged lifestyles of open-range cowboys had disappeared. Maybe in a sense, some freedom was lost. There was definitely a big loss in public property. It did end the majority of the frontier in the United States. I look forward to learning a lot more as well.

Posted by Tyler S at 4:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

For my Profile on Technology Paper, I'm going to write about the invention of videogames in America. With many early prototypes and TV interactive entertainment games all the way to the invention and popularity of Pong in 1972, video games have become part of our culture. Making tens of billions of dollars every year, the video game industry makes more than the movie industry.
I chose this technology because I was an avid gamer growing up and my only hobby back then was video games. I also only hung out with other gamers so I got to see how the "gaming culture" to its toll on the American culture. Even though I play zero video games now, I still remember their addictive effects and think it is interesting enough to get into.
Video games introduced isolated, addictive, repetitive entertainment on a scale that was so much grander than anything before it (for example, comic books or the radio) that its entertainment became in a class of its own. I think it's interesting enough to research why an intelligent culture can find video games so appealing. Some sides say they're pointless wastes of time, other sides say they're the reason for living, while more of us sit somewhere in the middle.
Video games impacted American culture (and eventually, world culture) by offering anyone an activity that offers no monetary or social benefit yet consumes hundreds of hours of their time (in the worst case). I personally lie on the side that thinks video games are all but useless and that it has done more to weaken our societies communication and ethical working skills than anything. I believe it has warped our societies views of what is hard work, what is reward, what is beneficial, and what can be deemed as a waste of time.

Posted by Luis C at 3:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

I am writing my paper on how dental care has altered our lives. I chose this topic because I am going to start dental hygiene school in the fall. Professional dental care has made it possible for people to live better and longer, free of handicap, disability and impairment. Dental care has changed what is considered attractive because good oral health is easier to maintain, therefore making large, white healthy looking teeth the social norm for what is considered attractive. This contributes to the inequality and stigma that is already attached to people of lower socioeconomic status because these people usually do not have dental insurance, therefore have poor oral health. Dental care has made people lose appreciation for their good oral health because it is something that is much easier to maintain now. People now start receiving regular dental care at a young age, so they have always had generally good oral health. Before professional dental care, people went to much greater lengths to maintain their oral health because they recognized that it is an important thing to maintain in order to survive. For example, people had to make their own toothbrushes, find their own materials for brushing, and make homemade dentures that did not work well. They really appreciated their good oral health, because without it, survival would be difficult. Not until 1921 were dental care providers required to be licensed to practice dental care. Therefore people could practice dentistry without education, proper training or extensive knowledge on health and the human body. If a person had dental problems prior to this time, proper dental care was not guaranteed. Now, dental care providers have extensive training and education to give proper care to patients.

Posted by Liz K. at 2:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

For this paper, I decided to analyze the invention of the horse collar and the impact that this technology has had on society. For all of you that do not know what a horse collar is, it was a tool developed during medevil times that allowed for the use of a horse to pull things like plows or wagons. Before the horse collar was invented, oxen were use to perform these types of tasks, with the use of a yoke to harness them to the plow or whatever they were pulling. However, horses are better workers and can work longer hours then oxen, so people preferred to have horses. The problem that people encountered before the horse collar was developed, though, was that the yoke that was used for oxen did not work on horses, because the the yoke made it difficult for the horses to breathe due to their body type. With the invention of the horse collar, though, it made it possible for people to use horses as a draft animal. This allowed people to work longer hours or travel longer distances, causing the expansion of not only agriculture but society as well. One could say that the invention of the horse collar has led to the domino affect of agricultural innovations that has led up to the current point where someone can sit in their tractor and let the GPS work the field. This has definitely made agriculture more efficient and cost effective, but, with all of these knew technologies, I think people are losing the sense of being in touch with their land or other emotions that are tied to a passion for production agriculture.

Posted by Tyler E at 2:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The technology I chose to write my paper on is the Public Land Survey. I picked this because it has been covered in my classes but only been briefly described. The PLSS was the way the government subdivided the land west of the Appalachian mountains into lots for sale, first into six mile square townships and then subdividing the townships into smaller lots. The PLSS replaced the metes and bounds system of land ownership, which was a description of your parcel of land by landmarks. For example a parcel could be described as starting at the old willow tree down by the fork in Mud Creek, then pacing off for 100 poles till you get to the big rock, turn west for another 120 poles etc. When the PLSS was completed it streamlined ownership titles because land could now be described accurately with the common latitude and longitude coordinate system. This achieved a major break through in efficiently for the bureaucrats in the state and federal government and removed a long standing traditional form of land ownership.

Posted by NatC at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

For my paper, I have chosen to look at the affect that the birth control pill has had on women and families. For women, the birth control pill was liberation. Women were free to have families as large as they want, and most importantly, when they wanted them. The responsibility of safe sex was no longer placed on the male (no more dealing with other annoying forms of contraception) and women were freer to act on their their sexual desires and their decisions to hold off on starting families. The sizes of families have also declined in the country as larger families fell out of fashion and the rulings of the Catholic Church changed in reference to birth control. While the liberation of women and the decrease in family size can be seen as huge pluses in the eyes of most, the pill has also caused some major cultural changes that may not be seen as positive. With the invention and use of birth control pills, many young women, spurred on by more radical feminist theory, have started to see sex as something casual and, in many modern scenarios, as an appropriate topic of public discourse and expression. I have not decided if I want to focus on this negative aspect of the birth control pill. I was wondering if anyone could suggest other negative cultural changes due to the introduction of the pill? My research is still in its infancy and I’m having trouble finding a solid direction.

Posted by Bess R. at 5:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

It was amusing to read about ELIZA and a programs response to questions. I tried to imaging what it would be like talking to a computer and getting emotional responses. I am not too sure how that would actually be. But, I was watching a show about robots responding to a person facial gestures. It was interesting to see the robot respond to the facial gestures and show it's own "emotion." I know it is all programmed and that was how it responded. But, it was funny to see a person talking to this robot. Then, that evening I was studying and my husband was on the computer playing games and chatting with his friends. He was having a good time and talking about doing some mission with his game. Then, I thought about a computer actually talking to him in the same way. What if he was talking to the computer and the computer was responding back with emotions? That thought disturbed me. I couldn't imagine him talking and laughing with a computer and have the actual computer converse the same as his fellow gamers. It was the fact that I knew these other people speaking were actual human beings that kept me at ease. All in all, he was talking to his robot. This reading of human as machine just reminded me of all the Artificial Intelligence movies I have seen. One in particular, Terminator 3, came to mind. Arnold corrects John Connor after he calls him a robot, by stating, "cybernetic organism." Sure, the terminator just has certain programs to follow and is played by a human so it doesn't seem that bad. But, it is interesting that people have come up with ideas like this and are actually working with technology towards their kind of cybernectic organism. I don't know how it would be talking to a computer and have it respond emotionally to you. I know we all talk to our machines or maybe personify them. I was more aware of this after I read CH 7 and heard my friends say, yeah, my phone is so stupid or my computer was acting up so I shut it off. I know I am guilty of the same thing. I just don't know how far the advancement in computers, being like humans, will go. I just know that I prefer talking to my electronics without having them respondback angrily, "Your stupid too!"

Posted by Tanna C at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's interesting that while reading this chapter on computer technology how humans, well at least those who live in a technolopoly try to accommodate everything to ourselves that it seems like we never know what it is we exactly want in life. In my opinion it seems like we do whatever it takes to make the humankind species sovereign in comparison to all other creations of species on this planet. I think postman does a good job showing this through the use of computers. In a broad spectrum we have the tendency to take an object and turn it into something that reflects ourselves and our cultures. Like postman said if we do in deed take objects and reflect our characteristics on them (i.e. culture) they of course can never in return somehow portray any negative aspects while being associated with us because in return we as an individuals are also reflected on negatively as well. I think what postman was trying to say is one of the ways that we tend to reflect ourselves onto objects that are clearly not like us but what we claims as what represents a part of us in some aspect or another is through the use of personification. As Postman demonstrates the computer is one such clear example, probably the best example that illustrates our tendency to apply personification to objects if they somehow represent us in a positive way. For instance in postman's example about bank computers shutting down we associate ourselves by claming that we are like the machine in terms of intelligence or as the machine represents our intelligence and when these machines break down we suddenly have no ties with it because it insults our intelligence as a species. I think the computer serves as the best example for this idea of personification well just because it's more difficult for me to apply this logic as to why we even apply this idea to other simple objects such as teddy bears and etc. Maybe it's because sometimes our personification through simple objects such as teddy bears represents the caring and nurturing side of humankind.

Posted by Kisha D. at 8:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I think that Postman raises good points about the ideology of the computer age. It’s easy to see how the computer affects our lives, sometimes in ways that allow us to avoid emotions, individuality, and the qualities that make us “human.” Ambiguity becomes less acceptable to us. Important questions and issues are reduced to true or false, yes or no, good or bad.

The forces that want to turn our lives into an assembly line aren’t just computers. Faceless bureaucracies operate with the same principles. Multinational corporations, for example, bring their standardized production and marketing practices to the world, without regard for local culture. But we also see the importance of personal contact in the computer age. We have a tendency to reject technologies that turn us into machines, make us less human. In a technopoly, people are primarily seen as consumers. We may be consumers, but we’re consumers that are extremely selective. We fight standardization by taking pride in our individual tastes. We’re always seeking to distinguish ourselves, to break out of the role of simple information processors.

Postman says that his experience in administration showed him that people, in general, unquestioningly accept the judgment of computers, and that a common reason given to do something is “because the computer said so.” But Postman doesn’t give us enough credit. Computers that make decisions already have values built into them. If you go into a bank and ask for a loan but have no income, a computer will probably tell you that you can’t have the loan. This is because a human made a judgment that people without incomes would likely be unable to repay loans. You can’t argue with the computer, because it worked perfectly, considering the instructions it was given. You’re also not in a position to argue with the human who determined that people without incomes can’t repay loans—he or she might be inaccessible. Postman thinks that people consider the computer to be a deity. In general, people know that computers are ultimately controlled by other humans’ values.

Posted by Eli W at 9:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In Postman’s seventh chapter, it was quite intriguing to see how computers have affected our lives. We heavily rely on computers to create designs, communicate, evaluate statistics, enable autopilots, determine the weather, and for an infinite list of reasons. I began to think, if humans are compared with computers, then can’t we function as a computer ourselves? Instead of spending hours studying for chemistry, hours of observing surgeries, hours of memorizing formulas, hours of anything that requires us to learn something, couldn’t we create a chip that was prefilled with this information and implant it into our brains? It would be as if we had our own flash drive for knowledge. We could implant a chip that contained an entire two semesters worth of calculus into our brains and not have to study it manually by reading and solving problems. Medical students could repair a bone fracture on their first day as if they have already performed hundreds of surgeries. Wouldn’t it be wonderful?

However, there can be significant consequences. Like any other computer, some of these chips may contain a virus that could cause severe trauma to the human and would most likely not be repairable. Someone could create a virus that would take over the human and enable him/her to harm others, or simply make the human sick and unrecoverable. This way of learning can also have a huge effect on the career industry. Many jobs will be full, and the next generation of workers will most likely be unable to find a company that is hiring since anyone can learn the required amount of information. Will this happen in the future? It might, and I’m sure it could cause severe problems, just like any computer that’s hit with a virus.

Posted by Allison L. at 9:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

On page 116 Postman states that the computer has come nowhere near the printing press when it comes to generating new radical thoughts. Since the book was written over a decade ago, I was wondering what Postman would think of Facebook, blogging, Twitter, etc. and the information publishing ability they have given to people. I’m not sure if during the time Postman wrote the book such blogging programs existed since personal computers had not taken off as they have now.
I think the major word here is radical when it comes to what is published. Most people are not blogging about ways for major social change but instead send tweets about what is happening during their day, nothing that could be considered radical at all. I guess this goes along with the talcum powder for the mind idea, people are given the incredible ability to basically have their own personal printing press and most utilize it for more mundane things then what could be done. I never looked at the ability to blog like this before, people are so inundated with new technology that connects us on levels never seen before and the result seems to be a overload with the resulting pile of useless tweets.

Posted by NatC at 9:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I found it really interesting how certain words in today's language have much different meanings than they once did. Take the word "computer" for example.
On page 110 Postman states, " Today, when the word "computer" is used without a modifier before it, it normally means some version of the machine invented by John von Neumann in the 1940's. Before that, the word "computer" referred to a person (similiarly to the early use of the word "typewriter") who performed some kind of mechanical calculation."
When I read that sentence, I stopped and thought for a second. I never actually thought about the two different possible meanings. I obviously only thought of the machine-based word. We live in a world where technology is so overrun and used for everything. It's funny how many other words have been shifted from being based upon people to machines. Take the word "virus" for example. It has two meanings in today's world - human virus and computer virus. The proper word for the computer "virus" is actually "worm", but based on how the media described what was happening to the computers back in 1988, people were much more familiar with the term virus and how it's effects were similar to that of a human virus. The media said the "computers were "infected" and that the virus was "virulent" and "contagious" . . . " Of course the word "virus" will stick when references are being made in that way. I just think it's interesting how much of our language today revolves around technology and how much it has shifted from one meaning to another.

Posted by Ashley L at 7:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Postman had many interesting views on the development of the computer, and its continuous evolution into a more human-like entity. People are being foolishly blinded by the excitement of new technology, so much so, that they forget about the possible consequences, until they become a reality. Our excitement over the versatility of the computer, and its many functions, has influenced people to view the world in a completely different way, seeing its inhabitants in a more technological light rather then biological. While, in comparison, computers are being treated more biologically or as as something more human then it is, which can be seen by computer's susceptibility to viruses. This fusion of technological and biological, and people's infatuation with it, have caused people to believe in the future the birth of artificial intelligence. If this was possible, mankind would be devastated since computers and technology control a high majority of our lives already. Unless the birth of artificial intelligence gives rise to millions of Wall-E's in which case all they want is love. Although Postman wrote his book back in 1992, he talks about the harmful impacts that computer already has on the culture, seventeen years ago. Computers have changed significantly and have become even more dependable, as well as widely used, it is here to stay. As computers evolved over time, they have become more convenient in use, also "smarter," much more efficient. Thus, people have become too reliant on the computer, treating it as a way to solve all types of problems, and programming it to do so. Yet computers have also been the cause of many problems, but I still like my computer it's awesome, and I am using it to type my blog, woohoo!

Posted by Sam K at 7:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I had some trouble posting my Monday questions yesterday. I tried to change the category to Technopoly and wasn't successful; then I decided to delete the post and start over again. The post remained after I thought I deleted it, so I didn't post it again. I looked today and now it's gone. Here's a link to what I posted yesterday. Thanks.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/schne126/1152/2009/03/institutions_bureaucracy_and_i.html

Posted by Eli W at 5:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The machine as human (or the human as machine)." (113) This metaphor is a little bit startling to say the least, but after reading this chapter I finally discovered the connection that Postman is making between the computer and human beings. Postman talks about people that believe they can program or deprogram themselves and the belief that the brain as a piece of "hard wiring" that is capable of receiving and sorting data, much like a computer However, he then goes on to talk about how this metaphor has been absorbed into the "machine as human" language when he brings up the case of the first recorded computer "virus." When these computers were first attacked, words usually associated with human illness were no being thrown around to talk about how this "virus" had attacked these computers. Words such as contagious, quarantine, and sterilize were all used to describe how this "virus" had attacked the computers and how they needed to stop the "virus." It even got as far as to bring up the development of a vaccine to inoculate the "virus." Personally, this is what put me over the edge to finally realizing just how humanized computers are becoming, and it actually kind of scares me at the possibility of having computers control humans, like we are their pets. However, like Postman states in the first paragraph on page 113, "Artificial Intelligence (referring to the computer) does not and cannot lead to a meaning-making, understanding, and feeling creature, which is what a human being is."

Posted by Tyler E at 2:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I thought Postman’s story about the ELIZA machine and how people refused to believe that they were conversing with a machine was really interesting. People need and want human interaction, and feel that even interaction through the computer is comforting. This shows how harmful computers can be to people and relationships. I was reading an article about how people who use Facebook or Myspace a lot are actually more likely to be depressed because they do not have as much actual human interaction. They may have 1000 friends on Myspace and talk with people on it for hours everyday, making them feel like they have a lot of friends, however they are actually having no real human interaction. This shows the effects of computer technology on the way people construe relationships. One of the main reasons people use Facebook or Myspace is to keep in touch with people, however they are still having no real human interaction with those people. People meet other people on Myspace and become “friends” with them and talk with them on a regular basis. This really gives people false familiarity. People with a few really close relationships are shown to be much happier than people with lots of acquaintances and loose friendships. The computer has really altered what people perceive as a friendship.
Something that computers has added to our culture that was not yet around when Postman wrote this book is computer addiction services. Computer addiction is causing divorces, college dropouts, and bad behavior in kids that is beyond correction. This shows how many things are possible without the compute, something that Postman reminds us to reflect on in the reading. For people whose marriages were ruined by the computer, they would have had the possibility of a successful marriage without the computer.

Posted by Liz K. at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

1. An information glut occurs when there is an information overload in the world, when information has its own information, and it becomes superfluous and unimportant. Institutions on which I rely include Fox news and Wikipedia, although these institutions contribute heavily to the information glut. I believe to effectively use information such as these, one must truly understand what they are hearing and reading, and sift through the information that really doesn’t matter. In short, have a goal in what you want to gain from the information you gather.
2. One can find bureaucracies, as Postman puts it, whenever they visit a news station or encyclopedia, or nearly any other website or news channel on TV. He defines them as places that attempt to control information in order to control readership.
3. Postman argues that with every new tool that is invented, our perception of the way to get things done shifts, and that it is because the medical field of technology is ever-changing that it is technologically biased. He argues that as Americans, we are wooed by the newest technology and are very aggressive in medicine, when sometimes it is not necessary. While this may be true, it has become part of our lifestyle. As opposed to much of Europe, we do not have (yet, thankfully) a socialized medicine program, in which the Doctors have strict guidelines set up by the government as to who gets a surgery and who does not. Another example of technological bias can be found in the MP3 market. Whenever a new IPod comes out, some people flock to get them, when they really do relatively the same thing as their predecessors. Americans have the right to buy what they want when they want it, provided they have the means to do it. We live in a compulsive society, and I don’t see a problem with it, as long as it makes us happy.

Posted by Drew P at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

1. Institutions I rely on to help me cope with the "informational glut," are my family and my church. My family has supported all my decisions and has encouraged me through think and thin. In my stuggles with school, occupations, health, life changes, they have always been there and helped me. They have helped me to filter out the bad parts of teenage life when peer pressure was an issue. Both my family and my church has taught me good values and helped me to understand what decisions were for my well-being and were a source of grounding. I am able to have a sense of peace and filter out the information that would be disruptive of my happiness by my family and chuch's influence.

2. The Universities are a type of bureaucracy I belong to. Where there is a need to find information, we are so tiny in the mix. We are all electronically connected. Everything uses technology. Lectures, iclickers, e-mails, everything having to deal with registering. There is hardly any interaction. Yet, you need and education to survive in the technological world.

3.Some examples of these are not needed surgeries, which I have had first hand experience with. Another is over the counter medicines. There is such an overabundance of it. Different brands, different types of cough medicines. Or pain killers that say they are strictly for headaches, earaches, hipaches, leg aches, or any aches you can imagine. Just the manufacturing of drugs is sky high. There are people taking medicines that they don't need, others taking too much of what they need and the list goes on and on.

Posted by Tanna C at 11:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

1.
National Public Radio has been my primary source of sanity against the tidal wave of information. I listen to it every day, it being a primary source of information about the world to me. I have very much been affected by the problem of information overload, mostly due to the easy availability of it on the internet. With so much stuff thrown in my face, it was easy to lose perspective of what is important. Whatever you may feel about NPR’s politics, I will say that they devote their time to giving you information that matters.
On a side note: information overload is vastly more problematic in this day and age than it was when this book was written.

2.
Reading through the previous posts, I see a lot of University of Minnesota bashing. I’m going to jump on that bandwagon as well, but with a caveat. Considering its size and the scope of the problems it deals with, the University is remarkably efficient. I was very impressed with this aspect of its operations when I first came here. But the sheer size of the place means that it can never be as personal or human as a small institution. Others here have mentioned how little we talk to real people when dealing with our problems; there are web applications to do that for us. It makes sense to do this, since they save so much money. But it distinctly changes the face of the university. When I think of the “face” of the University bureaucracy, I don’t think of a person, think of the onestop website.

3.
Journalism strikes me as a field which has been both bolstered and torn down by technology. The communication tools available to us today are fantastically useful for journalists. Cell phones, digital cameras, and their integration into a world-wide communications network have removed many of the logistical barriers facing reporters in the past. But in this focus on the tools of the trade, the end result has been neglected. The rise of technology in this field has changed the way people receive information and opinions about the world, not doubt. But it is harder to argue that the public has become more informed over the years.

Captain James T. Kirk ponders the downsides of recklessly embracing new things

Posted by Daniel B at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

1. Reflect on the institutions on which you rely or to which you belong
that help you deal with what Postman calls the "information glut." What are
they? Why do you rely on and/or belong to them?

Growing up, the two most obvious things that helped me deal with the "information glut" were my church and my family. First of all, I grew up in the Lutheran Church and attended church and "Sunday School" almost every Sunday, where my pastors and teachers would help me to lead me down the right path with my beliefs but also push me to find the answers to things about my beliefs that I questioned. Along with my religion though, my family and the values that I was brought up with have also helped me to shaped my beliefs on all the different information out there, and it is the combination of these values along with my religious beliefs that help me sort out what to believe and what not to believe.

2. Where in your world do you experience the bureaucracies (and their
effects) that Postman is talking about?

This seems to be a common theme among everyone else, but this University is definitely the main place that comes to mind when talking about bureaucracies. From day one, we are all given our student numbers that instantly become our form of personal identification. We are no longer know by our name, but instead by a seven-digit number. Just like each product has its own bar code at a grocery store, all of us at this university have a number the represents ourselves, taking out the need for any personal contact. Even though some classes, like this writing class for example, are examples of more personal teaching and learning, when it comes to classes where lectures number in the hundreds, students lose their personal identity and the professor just sees everyone as a number.

3. Chapter 6 is about the "ideological biases of medical technology" (94).
After reading this chapter and the conclusions, what other technologies
might serve as more recent examples of these ideas? Why?

This is a little more related to agriculture and more specifically livestock production, but one technology that I though of when reading this was the technology of artificial insemination. Even though this technology has been around for many years, its use today is becoming more and more widespread because of the bias that AI improves livestock production. While there is much truth in this argument, this is still a technology that falls into the "we have so why not use it" category. By no means do we absolutely need this technology to keep functioning, the benefits in efficiency and the ability to make animals better by using better genetics, make this technology hard to resist, so like cells phones or other technologies in that category, they become an ideological need.

Posted by Tyler E at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

1. “Information glut.”
There are numerous institutions I rely on mostly indirectly. The institution I rely on the most however like everyone else in this stage of my life is university where it is an institution geared toward focusing my studies on a particular subject. In a broad sense other words, the U.S. Department is the larger institution that goes with the general concept of school. Other implicit institutions (organizations) I rely on are institutions such as the U.S. Department of Treasury for money banking, investing, and money management in general especially by controlling the input/out of money into the market both locally, nationally, and internationally. Another institution that manages my information gluts, are TV networks. Information is debunked into shows of specific themes and subjects. In other words, if I find cooking shows relevant to my interest or study I have the opportunity of flipping to culinary channels. If I find news of particular interest all of a sudden then I use sorted channels to get this information where I can look up networks whose information portrays local, national, or international news. Then there’s also the institution of the U.S. Department of transportation, which many people rely on to organize the most efficient routes to the main places people travel with the most convenience. More specifically I rely on MNDOT for information regarding local traffic, and delays on routes. Lastly, another institution we all rely on is the U.S. Department of Health which makes sure everyone has health coverage, keeps documentation on products that could cause harm to its consumers by monitoring for instance cases involving salmonella, and sets standards as well as evaluates places we eat from and health care facilities we attend.
2. “Bureaucracies”
I also experience bureaucracies in numerous areas and of course the University is my main social institution where I have experienced the most of it. Upon automatically applying to the University of MN for instance, students automatically become a student ID number. In fact, it has been pretty evident to me that students often remain as nothing else but a number past admittance. For example, when a student tries to makes appointments with their advisor one of the most important questions a student is asked first is “ what is your student ID number” and not “what is your name.” The student’s name is only confirmed after the fact when an ID number appears on the appointment maker’s computer screen. Currently, I even witness the importance of bureaucracy furthermore when once again just to submit an exam right after taking it, an ID is required with an ID number to confirm identity.
Another example of bureaucracy I can think of besides in school is in medical
Offices with small surveys or so called paper work that needs to be filled out on arrival. Here again a patient becomes paperwork, and when that paperwork is lost that patient is doomed since the doctor cannot recall all the past information about the patient. For example, doctors know when their patients have received their shots because it is indicated on paperwork. However, when they no longer have any record of it, it can lead to consequences of medical malpractice as a result.
3. “Medical Biases.”
One other example of a medical technology that has taken away from a doctor’s ability to conclude a diagnosis based on their own objective observations of their patients and their patient’s reports is the sonogram. In the past especially in westernized countries before the existence of the sonogram people relied on their observations and instincts to image the positions and circumstance of an unborn child. Today OB/GYN’s use sonograms and other technologies as well to determine the circumstance of the child such as the child position in the womb. However, in non- technopoly societies today, there are still people who practice the old route of medicine without sonograms through their observational experiences. There are individuals who can position their hand on the stomach and automatically tell whether the baby is positioned incorrectly for delivery. However, not only are these people talented in being able to tell the position of the baby but they are also able to turn the position of the baby in the womb with simple palpations and maneuvers with their hands! This is somewhat along the same idea postman was arguing about with stethoscopes where how it used to be in the past that doctors were able to diagnosis problems of the heart through simple observations but not it’s difficult to find a physician who knows how to do this without the use of technology.

Posted by Kisha D. at 10:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of the few institutions that I rely on is my family. Without their support, I would never have been able to achieve the position I'm in now. As the oldest cousin, I'm the first one to go through the college process, sort of like the guinea pig for everyone else to depend on. Stating that, I heavily relied on my aunts and uncles to gain strategies on how to apply to and do well in college.

I'm experiencing one of the bureaucracies here at the university. I have realized that instructors here at the view have a completely different perception of the students than the way high school teachers do with their students. There's always the quote, "Teacher's Pet," and I feel this marks the largest difference between the professions. In high school, you can always go to your favorite teacher's classroom and start talking about random things, like stories about going fishing was always my calculus teacher's favorite subject to discuss. At the university, there is a lack of this kind of communication between the professors and the students, but it's not to say it's impossible. You don't have to be referred to as the student who sits in the front of the class.

I feel that medications for children are becoming more abundant than ever before. Teachers are beginning to use medications as an excuse for the reason of a child's behavior. Typically, medications are to help children with a physician's diagnosis of having a certain condition or disease. Now, prescriptions are almost freely given to children, so the use of these medications has been changed within these past years and medical technology has advanced.

Posted by Allison L. at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

1. Reflect on the institutions on which you rely or to which you belong
that help you deal with what Postman calls the "information glut." What are
they? Why do you rely on and/or belong to them?

There are two things which I rely on most: my religion and family values. I grew up going to a Lutheran Church and attended Sunday School every week. I was guided by many elders to follow the right path in life. My family was somewhat strict in hindsight, but I also know that I wouldn't be who I am today if it weren't for them continuously pushing me. Combining my religion along with my family values, I am able to deal with the vast amounts of information given to me, and decide what I should do with it.

2. Where in your world do you experience the bureaucracies (and their
effects) that Postman is talking about?

I experience this in school right now. The U of M is a very large college, obviously. With that being said, I feel as if I am nothing but a number sometimes. Some classes are held in lecture halls that hold hundreds of students. The professor isn't going to attempt to learn student's names and socialize with each of them. They are just a number to the professor. Registering for classes is done online and you hardly ever interact with anyone to complete the task. There are online classes as well - which in my opinion, don't give the same effect as being in an actual classroom.

3. Chapter 6 is about the "ideological biases of medical technology" (94).
After reading this chapter and the conclusions, what other technologies
might serve as more recent examples of these ideas? Why?

I think there are many examples that can be used for this question. The one I am choosing is cell phones. Before they came out, it was normal to see pay phones everywhere. They worked, and were basically everywhere. Now you hardly see them, or maybe don't even notice them if they are there. After the entrance of cell phones into society, people became dependent and don't go anywhere without them. We wouldn't know what to do if the technology was suddenly "lost". The same thing holds true with medical technology. Some of it isn't necessary - like diet pills that don't work (Though people take them anyway). We have become so dependent on it that if it was lost, the people who use them wouldn't know what to do.

Posted by Ashley L at 9:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

verisimilitude
• noun - the appearance of being true or real. the appearance of truth.

The word can be found in Technopoly by Postman on page 81, the second paragraph.
"History takes a long time, and there may yet be developments that will provide Marx's vision with fresh sources of verisimilitude."

Postman's beliefs possess verisimilitude, and thus intrigues the reader with the content of his book.

Posted by Sam K at 9:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

1. Reflect on the institutions on which you rely or to which you belong
that help you deal with what Postman calls the "information glut." What are
they? Why do you rely on and/or belong to them?

My first reaction would obviously be the church that I belong to back home. I had an excellent pastor that really cleared things up, but also pushed me to learn more about the things I questioned. He was very open-mined and cared not to share his own opinion, but urged me to my find my own way through life experiences and my family. But now that I am at school, I never attend church. I think living in a fraternity helps me right now with the "information glut." It helps me to make moral decisions and believe it or not, living with a bunch of other guys dealing with the same stuff as me is a strong voice reasoning in a lot of life experiences.

2. Where in your world do you experience the bureaucracies (and their
effects) that Postman is talking about?

The University of Minnesota is definitely the first thing that pops into my head when talking about bureaucracies. It seems that to a lot of university officials, students and faculty are little more than numbers and figures. With that, and the way of registering for classes, there is no real person-to-person talking, its all online clicking and maybe, just maybe an e-mail. All of this is bureaucratic and is no doubt efficient, but it just lacks any sort of human thoughtfulness. Not very personal if you catch my drift. Its the same exact way with large lectures and power points. They are more efficient than 20 of us meeting up for writing class, but you just don't quite get the same experience.

3. Chapter 6 is about the "ideological biases of medical technology" (94).
After reading this chapter and the conclusions, what other technologies
might serve as more recent examples of these ideas? Why?

I think the same ideologies apply basically across the board. Nobody really "needed" SUV's or cell phones, but now that they are out, we actually do need them(in our heads). Its the same thing as in medical technology; we don't need all of the technological advancements in every case, but since we have the technology, we feel the absolute need to constantly use it.

Posted by Tyler S at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

An institution that I rely on to filter as much "information glut" as possible in my life is my faith. I have been involved with a church since I was young, since my family has a long history of missionaries and pastors. Yet, by my own personal choice, I use my faith as a basis for what I choose to believe. Through my continuous involvement and growth within a church, I have been able to filter and dictate the acceptance of specific information. That is not to say I will not listen and learn, but my beliefs are the central source from which I draw out the conclusions from the information I receive on a daily basis.
A common bureaucracy is college. Students are taught by professors who specialize in a specific subject, who themselves were also students at one time, to become competent workers in a certain field. Students are taught what is said to be necessary to succeed in the future, and then are spewed out in the thousands by the University within four to five years for most. Within large universities the feeling of efficiency and quantity over quality seems to dominate. Many times lecture halls are filled to maximum capacity with students that have similar goals and achievements, yet with voices may never be heard.
Google or any other search engine has made obtaining information too easy. The ease of access to vast amounts of information has caused people to become self-reliant and possibly impatient to in depth research over quick and simple. I was once told a story about a patient who came into the doctor's office demanding a certain type of drug to reduce cholesterol. When the doctor told him that his cholesterol level was fine, thus drugs unnecessary, he told the doctor that he had done research and believed he still needed them. Some people now trust what complete strangers online may say or their own analysis, on whether they should take potentially harmful drugs, over what a doctor may recommend. Although I also use Google to search for simple information, I will not use it for research papers, since professors will not accept information retrieved from search engines and randomly selected websites with no credentials, quality over quantity.

Posted by Sam K at 8:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The main institution that I belong to that helps me deal with “information glut” is school, and in particular the Dental Hygiene Program at school. I belong to this because I want a career in dental hygiene therefore I have to focus on health and science and exclude other information that is not as relevant to that field. This is a form of information control, for example, I did not need to take art classes to be able to apply to the dental hygiene program because those would not help me in my career as much as taking science classes would.
School is a bureaucracy that I experience. At school we are taught information in the most efficient way for the university and for the students, helping to graduate people in four years. We are taught information that is going to help us most in our lives and our careers. It is the professor’s responsibility to teach the students information, but what the student’s do with that information is not the professor’s responsibility. A student could take a math class and go on to become an engineer, or they could drop out of school and become a cashier.
The surgical removal of impacted wisdom teeth is performed more in the United States than anywhere else in the world, even though only a very small percentage of people in the world do not have wisdom teeth. This is because American oral surgeons can make money off of wisdom teeth extractions.

Posted by Liz K. at 7:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

1. Throughout my life going to church has been a huge aspect that has helped me deal with the “information glut.” Back home I attend a Missouri Senate Lutheran Church almost every Sunday. They have instilled their values and opinions about right and wrong according to the bible in me. Looking to the church and taking into consideration their standpoint on a topic is important to me. Everyone needs guidance in their lives that help create boundaries.

2. I experience the bureaucracy at school. During my college experience I have stumbled across teachers and teacher assistants that I have had to alter my views in order for them to give me the grade I want on a paper or test. What’s the point of going to college if I can’t express how I feel? At college we are taught to think and do things a certain way. We follow because getting that A in the class is really our only door to medical school, graduate school, or a job.

3. Recently anti-depression and sleeping pills have been prescribed to many people. They have helped those in need. However, some people have become dependent on them and acquire an addiction. They rely on their prescription. Some people are even taking more than one type of pill, which can be dangerous. For example, Heath Ledger recently died from a drug overdose. Even though prescription pills have helped many people with sleeping apnea, depression, and anxiety they have created a bigger problem, addiction.

Posted by Lana H at 7:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

1. The main institution that I use to filter the glut of information are the values I was raised with. From these values I have formed my own opinions and read articles relating to them.

2. Everything a person does is governed somehow by a bureaucracy. Today I had to turn in a stack of paper work the U asked for. I am pretty sure the clerk only cared that I had all my paper work in order to streamline the data analysis later.

3. Weather Forecasting, people do not use personal experience anymore when trying to determine the weather. Peoples estimates are dependent on a Meteorologist and the computer weather projection software they use.

Posted by NatC at 7:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a14s1LcCUWs

Poking fun at our fascination with, and dependence on, technology.

Posted by Bess R. at 6:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

1. The first two institutions that crossed my mind were school and my religion since Postman mentioned both of these in the book. I rely on both of these to control the information I get because I feel that both of them provide me with information that I care about. My schooling is giving me information that I will need for my future job. It will also help me to get into a job I will like because I am able to control the information I get through the major I choose to pursue. I also choose to belong to a religion because I feel that information I receive through the religion in valuable to me.
2. The main bureaucracy that many people use is Google. When you type something into the search bar, Google then searches through tons and tons of websites to find the information you are looking for, that way you can read only the information you wanted. Google is a wonderful tool for reducing the amount of information that you have to process.
3. I feel that flu shots could be an example of an “ideological biases of medical technology.” Every year people are getting a flu shot because it decreases your likely hood of getting the flu. But every year there is a new vaccine coming out because the virus is changing to quickly. Each time the vaccine is becoming less and less effective and the scientists are having a harder time creating a vaccine, eventually it will just no longer work.

Posted by Kathryn N at 3:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

1. Reflect on the institutions on which you rely or to which you belong that help you deal with what Postman calls the "information glut." What are they? Why do you rely on and/or belong to them?

- I grew up in Protestant churches. The one I've gone to the most was one that I'll call Church X. Church was big factor in reducing information glut. It conditioned what I was exposed to and what I would go out to hear. The standard at Church X was the Bible, which they believed to be the perfect, infallible, living Word of God that has all the perfect truth in the universe. Whenever scientific study presented something contrary to the Bible, Church X told us that Science had to be wrong in this aspect. When the rest of the World began believing a certain new mindset (whether about abortion, gay marriage, whatever) that mindset would be compared to the Bible and viewed accordingly.

2. Where in your world do you experience the bureaucracies (and their effects) that Postman is talking about?

- In school, right now. The purpose college is go in, learn, and leave as a more learned person than when you entered. I can buy the books, and take the classes, do the homework, and take the tests, but sometimes I don't feel more learned (I don't remember a thing I learned in Physics w/Calc). However, I still find my excuse being, "Hey I did the homework and took those tests. I did what I was supposed to do." And, technically, that is what I was supposed to do. I guess that is a bureaucratic stance to take.

3. Chapter 6 is about the "ideological biases of medical technology" (94). After reading this chapter and the conclusions, what other technologies might serve as more recent examples of these ideas? Why?

- 74.1% of Americans are overweight (Streib 2007). However, America spends 35 billion dollars a year on diet products (McNamara 2006).
- I think I may have said this is another post somewhere, but Americans are unwilling to work hard in this aspect and are looking to find the easy way out of eating what they love (and lots of it). They're even willing to resort to technology and taking pills that they know probably won't work and have no guarantee of safety. How dumb!

STREIB, LAUREN. 2007. World's Fattest Countries. In Forbes.
MCNAMARA, MELISSA. 2006. Diet Industry is Big Business. In CBS news.

Posted by Luis C at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)