The Licklider and Taylor article was a fascinating read when you consider how closely they predicted the future of "computer-facilitated communication." Obviously they were dealing with very real technologies that needed only time (and money) to fully blossom. This led to their impressive and accurate assumption about the future (unlike the effort of the original "Lost in Space" writers who placed their story in the distant year of 1997). It's hard to believe that the Internet I was cursing out in 1994 (I still preferred to wait in line for four hours to sign up for classes at the U of I Armory) had been conceptualized thirty years earlier. Where I think they missed the mark, however, was in their prediction of how the quality of communication (and life?) would be improved. When I ask my students what is so wonderful about computers and the Internet, their answers are eerily similar to these assertions.
Licklider and Taylor claim that "a communication system should make a positive contribution to the discovery and arousal of interests" (26). The accompanying cartoon depicts a rudimentary drawing of heart with initials inside it "cleaned up" into a beautiful picture before being sent to its intended. My kids think it's great that Microsoft Office has AutoCorrect; I find it to be the bane of my existence (at least as an English teacher). They don't know how to spell anymore, and proofreading is viewed as unnecessary and redundant (Didn't the computer already check for spelling and grammar errors?). Don't get me wrong. I don't turn the AutoCorrect off on my own computer, but I already know how to spell. I know when I've created a fragment, and when I have, it's almost always on purpose. I know the rules, so I'm allowed to break them for effect. Many kids assume Computer Knows Best and no longer think for themselves.
Licklider and Taylor make two more assertions late in the article with which most of my students concur. "First, life will be happier for the on-line individual because the people with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by commonality of interests and goals than by accidents of proximity" (40). Does that assume, gentlemen, that no members of this community will present themselves under false pretenses? If not, how does that factor affect the Happiness Scale. "Second, communication will be more effective and productive, and therefore more enjoyable" (40). What about when people miscommunicate via computer? How does this affect efficiency? I pose this question because I have seen far too many e-mails misinterpreted. Without non-verbal behaviors such as tone of voice and facial expressions, completely inoccuous statements can be read the wrong way. I would use some of my wife's e-mails as examples, but she won't release them to me (can you see my tongue-in-cheek?). In all seriousness, my wife is an infinitely kind and caring woman, but I've read some of her messages to others and immediately knew how they would be misinterpreted. Multiple follow-up e-mails would be sent asking and offering clarification. She has since declared on more than one occasion that "no important news, information, or concerns should be delivered via e-mail. It's just not personal." Nor, if you don't get it right the first time, is it effective or efficient.
But I digress. Maybe I should take off the gloves and quit fighting it. Maybe English instruction as we know it will go the way of the Dodo. Perhaps I should start taking some computer science courses. Do they even call it that anymore?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I completely agree with your comments about your wife's emails. This is something that has crossed my mind many times in the past when writing emails, especially in the workplace. One has the tendency to forget to whom they write. Many times I would be on the verge of replying to a pesky boss with a sarcastic and (in my opinion) witty comment or complaint. Then I would read through it and realize that if I wanted to keep my job, I had better rephrase. :)
I have also seen innocuous statments taken the wrong way because of the lack of nonverbal signals. I think we'd all agree that it is universally acknowledged that when we speak we use these nonverbal signals--even when speaking to our employers. Why then, is it considered to be inappropriate to use the closest approximations to these signals we have for text (emoticons) in email to the same people? =D
Your insights are interesting -- it is something I've been thinking about. The problems with spelling and assumptions about the power of computers our students exhibit is sometimes scary. Especially since they don't seem to realize that PEOPLE (with their infinite ability to misunderstand and misinterpret) are the ones who created those "wonderful" spell check programs. They also don't seem to understand that computers are the dumbest, most literal things out there.
I think one of the problems is a generational shift in thinking based upon the technology itself. Our students have never seen a rotary dial telephone, let alone used a typewriter to have to create a presentable document. I think one area of rhetoric and composition studies that has not yet been fully explored is the way that computer aided writing is fundamentally changing the way in which we compose and think about communication as opposed to simply being a useful tool. I know I am much more willing to re-write, erase, change order, write "out of order" and modify my own work if it is on a screen versus what I would have had to do if I were bound by pen, paper and a typewriter. The level of effort alone to type a paper made the prospect of revision and reworking daunting and unappealing.
Rather than look into computer science degrees, maybe we should be looking at the way the medium itself is effecting our way of thinking about words, communciation, and the way they are put together.
Post a Comment