But honestly, I DID read Catcher in the Rye and Romeo and Juliet and Lord of 
the Flies, 1984 etc. even though I HATED doing it, didn't like reading them one 
bit at that time, probably didn't get out of it what I should have, although 
ironically I do remember a lot about them, because there really wasn't that 
much else to take up my time. I did it by default, not because I wanted some 
higher intellectual stimulation. So I think that in the "good old days" 
students did more academic work simply because they were bored and had not much 
else to do that was readily available as something to do.

I did grow up in Chicago (emphasis on "in" as in smack dab in the middle, and 
not the suburbs), and again, did cultural events by default--getting out of 
doing something else when bored so went to the Art Institute or the downtown 
library (now gone), or Lincoln Park zoo, or the theater, etc. The good thing 
was that those experiences have stayed with me even though I might not have 
appreciated them at the time or gotten as much out of them as I could 
have/should have. I wonder if the ready availability of electronics would have 
changed that.

Annette

Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Professor, Psychological Sciences
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

________________________________
From: drnanjo [[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 8:31 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] texter and gamer, Facebook addict and YouTube potato





I can appreciate the concern that there may be a lot of young people
who are incapable of reading a complete novel or be as focused on tasks
as some adults like but it ignores the kids who are into the Harry Potter
books, the Narnia books, and many other book series.  How are these
kids able to read such thick and complex books if all they can attend to
are tweets and text messages?


Indeed I wonder too if we simply over-estimate the number of young people in 
the legendary "olden days" who enjoyed (or did) read complete novels and seek 
out higher-level intellectual/cultural experiences.

It reminds me of the same fixation on "kids were better back then" or "it was 
better back then" that forgets that "back then" (as recently as the second 
quarter of the 20th C children still died much more frequently than they do now 
of easily treated or prevented [vaccination] diseases.)

Or that psychologists at that time wrote the same articles about comic books 
destroying the intellects and moral character of youth that they now write 
about video games and tweeting and Facebook.

for the record I am not objective about Facebook - I have an FB page and I love 
it. Admittedly I spend a lot of time there.

But I think this is the same old same old back again for more rumination. The 
good old days simply weren't. They never were.

Nancy Melucci
Long Beach City College

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Palij <[email protected]>
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) <[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Palij <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Nov 21, 2010 8:20 am
Subject: re: [tips] texter and gamer, Facebook addict and YouTube potato


On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 07:27:38 -0800, Annette Taylor wrote:
>This link was posted on the pod list today so some of you have
>probably seen it; but for those of you for whom it is new, it
>supports what we have probably all seen in the last decade:
>the hypnotic? addictive? lure of the internet for our students
>when they should be studying.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Michael Smith mode on:
I was going to read it but it was too long.  Does anyone have a
tweeter version of the article?
Michael Smith mode off.

A quote provided in the NY Times news summary email is this:

|"Their brains are rewarded not for staying on task but for jumping
|to the next thing. The worry is we're raising a generation of kids in
|front of screens whose brains are going to be wired differently."
|MICHAEL RICH,  executive director of the Center on Media
|and Child Health, on how digital technology affects children.

Now, I may be wrong or I misunderstand my pop neuroscience but
isn't Rich's concern unfounded?  True, students and young people
may find it more reinforcing and/or interesting to engage in various
digital media -- especially short form -- but if we believe in the
plasticity of the human brain throughout the lifespan, isn't the brain
being continually rewired (neurologist Richard Restak, of author of
"Receptors", "The Brain", and "The New Brain", says in the latter
that the brain is so plastic that parts of it are different after a lecture
relative to its state before a lecture)?  If experience continually rewires
the brain, shouldn't the concern be with behavioral and environmental
control to make sure that certain skills are developed and maintained,
like reading novels in book form?  If "Vishal" can only read 43 pages
of Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle" in two months (the article is unclear
whether he was reading it in paper form or ebook format), might this
be more about more poor contingency control (i.e., lack of reinforcing
book reading) than a rewired brain that is incapable of handling novel
length narratives?

I can appreciate the concern that there may be a lot of young people
who are incapable of reading a complete novel or be as focused on tasks
as some adults like but it ignores the kids who are into the Harry Potter
books, the Narnia books, and many other book series.  How are these
kids able to read such thick and complex books if all they can attend to
are tweets and text messages?

Too bad the article didn't interview any yeshiva students, especially
those in high school which would be the appropriate comparison group.
These students also make use of digital media (at the very least, the
"modern orthodox") as well as devoted Torah study and the study
of other texts.

-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>




---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=12993.aba36cc3760e0b1c6a655f019a68b878&n=T&l=tips&o=6646
or send a blank email to 
leave-6646-12993.aba36cc3760e0b1c6a655f019a68b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-6646-12993.aba36cc3760e0b1c6a655f019a68b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu>


---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a21b0&n=T&l=tips&o=6648

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to 
leave-6648-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-6648-13534.4204dc3a11678c6b1d0be57cfe0a2...@fsulist.frostburg.edu>

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6649
or send a blank email to 
leave-6649-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Reply via email to