Quote:
Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel
Make that two 
I'm TAing this semester and working with undergraduates (and some graduate students) has really opened my eyes to how they are synthesizing and analyzing information, or not. As much as I like getting critical information fast, I covet my ability to see bias, research my own sources, and make an effort to get the biggest picture.
I'm reading a book called "The Dumbest Generation" and the author discusses how today's young adult can get information fast and believes it to be reliable, so there isn't a point for many of them to go beyond an RSS feed or their chosen website nor retain it as long as they have the facts to answer the homework or test question and can recall it with a few clicks. I'm really enjoying my experience with students who want to not just regurgitate information, but will make comparisons and relationships to other areas of their studies and life. One comment from the book that struck me was that one woman used RSS feeds to only get information from particular sites so she wouldn't get anything else creeping in. I see this with the general public who will only listen to a certain channel, talking heads, or read particular websites. Anyone can publish a blog, tweet, or make their ideas look like legitimate news and fact when they aren't. |
I understand the concern, but there's another side to that sentiment. The easy access to information also means that there is easier access to academics and critical thinkers around the country.
As far as people only listening to certain channels or certain talking heads, I think that certain groups of people have always been intellectually stubborn. If you look back to movements in the late 19th/early 20th century (like the anti-immigration groups), through the Goldwater conservatives, to today, there's always been a tendency by people to only listen to one voice.
That doesn't necessarily make it right, but I think it's been an issue for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little32
I, too, have questioned whether the access to all of this information, more immediately, necessarily translates into smarter, if those key components of sound analysis and synthesis are missing.
Many have been noting that the "success" of this movement is driven by the new technologies that make it easier to organize. Others have pointed out that certain networks are overblowing the movement, making it seem like there are more people involved than there really are.
|
I'm not sure if certain networks are "overblowing" the movement, if only because it is a fairly large amount of people. Nate Silver estimated over 300,000 people attended Tea Party protests in April 2009 (link:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...ttendance.html). There's Tea Party Nation (the group that had Palin as keynote speaker), the Tea Party Patriots, and at least a couple of other groups that escape my memory.
Now, I don't know how to define the "success" of the movement. People are talking about it, and it's made its way into the news cycle, so that could be a "success" on its own.