Thompson 6-10

There's so much to talk about in these chapters from Clive Thompson's book, Smarter Than You Think. Thompson moves sequentially from examples of progressive collaboration to the benefits of incorporating multimedia and technology in schools, an effect called 'ambient awareness', to the collective unification of the world via the internet. Thompson very clearly is advocating heavily for the incorporation of multi-media and cites many examples of positive change due to technological interaction. Though I agree, mostly, with his points I can't help but desire a concession to the 'other side'. Plenty of groups advocate heavily against advancements in technology and there is a particularly large movement to dissuade the incorporation of technology in school environments. Not to mention the significant implications that technology as a whole has for the environment and both human social and physical health. ( check some opinions on that out here: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/26295-is-modern-technology-killing-us ) I think by choosing to not encompass the entirety of the situation, I think Thompson weakened his argument. How would he dispute these arguments? Since technology is fairly 'new' and ever-changing, is it safe/fair to say the benefits out way the negative effects when we aren't fully sure of what those may be, 100%, yet?

I pulled out a lot of quotes while reading, but I wanted to share a few and the questions that they sparked me to ask: 

"When you gaze with wild surmise upon the Pacific of strangeness online, you confront the astonishing diversity of human passion"(153). 

- Thompson talks here about how the online community allows us to foster "strangeness" in the sense that we have more freedom to express obscurity and find acceptance. In a way, the internet allows us to have a world without boarders and an environment that is malleable. With increased connectivity and collaboration, our sense of place is infinitely larger. What sort of environmental implications does this disconnection with our tangible place create?

"But a strongly worded opinion-- the core of an op-ed-- is not subject to consensus. This is why collective thinking online also tends to fail when it attempts an aesthetic creation"(159). 

- How interesting to think that creativity tends to be opinion-based and therefore nearly impossible to collaborate for efficiency.   

"They assign videos to be watched at home, then have the students do the homework in class, flipping their instruction inside out"(177). 

- I'm struck by how much sense this system makes. Though, I see the same sort of loop holes that we see with our current system: kids would still go home, and blow off the videos, then come to class unprepared and need to play catch-up. I see the connection to multi-media here with the flexibility of the video assignments, but I'm not sure this holds enough weight-- what if the children don't have computer access? Some of these solutions seem to really play into a certain demographic... rich, anglo-saxon suburban families... 

"How much should you credit someone else if you use a bit of their code? Or a 'sprite' from their game? What constitutes a contribution so creative that you can put your name on a remix" (194)?

- Brings me back to the conversation in class about plagiarism, and Johnson-Eilola's astonishment at the editors request that he cite even a single word used. The lines are finite, and becoming more and more blurred as we continue into untouched territory and collaborative words. I don't even know how to begin thinking about code and how the citation or ownership would work for something that appears systematic in my mind. 

"His hypothesis is that language, one of our signal intellectual gifts, evolved precisely to allow us to socially 'groom' one another, in the way that primates groom one another physically"(222). 

"Actually, one of the best ways to grasp how political change happens is to study how it doesn't"(251).