Deep and Hyper Attention

N Katherine Hayles discusses two types of cognitive styles: deep attention and hyper attention.

Deep attention is characterized by the ability focus on one object for long periods of time, while blocking the background objects out. The benefits can be seen when one needs to focus its efforts on a single complex task or problem in a single medium. The downside is that alertness one has of the surrounding environment as well as the flexibility in response.

The characteristics of hyper attention are switching focus among multiple tasks quickly, preferring multiple information streams, seeking high level of stimulation, and having low tolerance for boredom. The pros and cons on hyper attention are opposite of deep attention. It is great for situations that require shifting the focus of attention consistently, but lacking in situations that call for long term attention.

Hayles discusses how hyper attention developed first, while deep attention is a luxury that developed from safer environments. Educational institutions are an example where deep attention is the norm. However, because of the current technologies, there is a shift taking place from deep attention to hyper attention.

What Hayles is saying does make a lot of sense. When you consider the internet, the amount of time the younger generation spends on a single task is very little compared to what you might expect from the older generation.

I can definitely see the shift happening in my own generation, as I write this blog post. While typing on my computer, I’m consistently checking my phone as well as browsing some websites. However, I also grew up without a lot of these distractions, so I was able to focus on practicing the piano for about two hours while shutting down what went on around me.

The shift from deep to hyper attention is most likely something we can’t stop. I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing as this is something that the society seems to demand. However, I also think it is important to keep developing deep attention as well. Both deep and hyper attention has their advantages and disadvantages. Developing both styles of thinking should minimize the problems presented.

Feenberg

I found the reading for Andrew Feenberg to be most interesting, particularly the declarations he makes in

the opening paragraph of his “Democratic Rationalization: Technology, Power and Freedom”. Feenberg

states that “technology is one of the major sources of public power in modern societies”. I think Feenberg

is spot on with his assertion. In this day and age, technology is power and the more technologically

advanced individuals or groups of individuals are in a society, then the more control and influence those

beings will possess. For example take the evolution of man. On a very basic level, the man or woman

who had fire or fire technology around the time of fire’s discovery had the power. Ultimately that person

with fire technology would become the leader; essentially they would be the ruler that would be in charge

of the greater good for his/her society much like that of modern day politicians but with less of the insider

dealings. In my opinon power and politics came about due to the establishment of technology. If you

do not have some kind of advanced technology to offer to a society or to the world then you are just

another being existing in that state. To re-iterate what Feenberg says, when you possess technology you

in turn possess far more control over “patterns of urban growth, the design of dwellings and transportation

systems, the selection of innovations, our experience as employees, patients, and consumers, than all

the governmental institutions of our society put together. What I take away from all of this is that

technological power yields political power which I believe is a little different than what Feenberg is

attempting to delve into. From Feenberg’s point of view he seems to be of the opinion that possession

of technology and the technological power that accompanies it cannot yield or be included with political

or governmental power. He seems to pose them as two separate entities that never cross paths with one

another but personally I tend to disagree with what he is saying. I believe that control over technical

systems can result in political control.

Feenberg’s Democratic Rationalization

In Andrew Feenberg’s article about democratic rationalization, he seems to be against the idea of technological determinism. The idea of technological determinism assumes that technologies have an autonomous functional logic, which can be explained without referencing society like mathematics and sciences. He attacks this idea in two ways.

The first idea he attacks is the idea that technology follows a fixed track. Technology starts off in its basic form, and gradually it becomes more complicated. Feenberg claims that the base of these claims is of unequal plausibility. An example he uses is with the bicycle, and how it developed. A bicycle with a larger front wheel was faster but more unstable compared to a bicycle with same size wheels. Both designs have pros and cons, but can you really say one is superior to the other? The safer same size wheel won out in the end where all future development is taking place, but there was also the possibility of the other design winning out.

The other thesis is the idea that the society adapts to the technology that has been created. To this, Feenberg addresses social reforms by governments. The main purpose of these reforms was to protect the laborers. However, with this reform, the technology that was created and developed changed to adapt to society and its new standards. This is the exact opposite of how determinism works, with technology shaping society. The idea of interdeterminism is represented where not one affects the other all the time, but both society and technology affecting each other.

I agree with Feenberg that there are flaws to technological determinism, especially about his discussion of how technology does not determine everything about society, but it can happen the other way around.

From these arguments, Feenberg suggests that “we can achieve a new type of technological society that can support a broader range of values” and that democracy is one value that it could serve better. He mentions that there are heavy resistance to this from all sorts of directions, but also says that this can be an alternative to both the celebration of technology and Heideggerian counterclaims. How do you think of Feenberg’s idea of democratic rationalization?

Herbert Marcuse

I realize I am late on posting for last Thursday’s class but hopefully this blog post will provoke some interesting dialogue amongst each other since we are not meeting this week.  I found Marcuse’s writing on “The New Forms of Control” to be quite interesting; specifically his topic or idea regarding what he calls false need.  Marcuse wants to answer the question of what role technology plays in freeing someone from someone else’s control.  He believes that advances in technology have lead to a decline in revolutionary potential in many parts of the world.  He argues that advancements in technology created what he calls false needs, which integrated individuals into the existing system of production and consumption via mass media, advertising, industrial management and modern modes of thought. Essentially what Marcuse is saying when it comes to these false needs is that we do not authentically want them and interestingly enough we are presented with the illusion that we choose it. Honestly, I do not think he is too off base with what he is proposing here; I mean he does have a good point. Take for example the computer or better yet the laptop. The question is do we really want the laptop and are we even given a choice as to whether or not we have one. A laptop, among other things, has almost become essential to survival in this technology crazed everyday life we live in now. Whether we want a laptop or not, we need a laptop to stay in contact with business associates, to participate in school, to purchase things and so on. Without a laptop and more specifically the Internet it would be hard for us to stay update on worldwide news since some newspaper are going strictly digital. And for those reasons we don’t have choice when it comes to owner ship of such a device. Now granted, we do have a choice as to what brand, color, and memory capabilities a laptop has when it comes times for us to purchase it but at the end of the day even those choices are to some extent dictated by the parameters of what is available and manufactured at that current time. My question to you is do you think Marcuse’s assertions about “false needs” are valid?

McLuhan’s “challenge and collapse: the nemesis of creativity”

In McLuhan’s “challenge and collapse: The nemesis of creativity” he talks about Bertrand Russell’s “technique of suspended judgment” in the first paragraph. He also compares this to A.N. Whitehead’s “technique of discovery”. Both believed that these were the great discoveries of the 20th century. The “technique of discovery” basically means that whatever someone is trying to discover, they work backwards until they get to the very essence of what that is. At first this was pretty confusing but the example that McLuhan gave helps a lot. For instance, in art, you start off with an effect or an emotion. And then you keep adding to the art work so that it resembles that emotion or effect. The “technique of suspended judgment” as McLuhan put it, goes further. This technique predicts certain outcomes. The example that McLuhan gives is that a unhappy childhood can produce an unhappy adult. Connecting this with technology you can see how taming fire can result in a furnace being created; where it can either heat a home, make weapons such as swords, or just cook food. When it comes down to trying to understand these concepts, I began to realize that I was doing the same thing that A.N Whitehead and Bertrand Russell were doing. They are simply trying to better understand technology and where it comes from. They are trying to better understand the human condition in regards to technology just like I am trying to understand them. Throughout human history, human beings have constantly been inventing new technologies but also asking questions about that technology and how it changes us. Which is understandable; since the biggest thing separating our species from other animals is our use and creation of technology. The “technique of discovery” and the “technique of suspended judgment” are the techniques used to simply better understand the world we have created around us. These concepts were created in the 20th century where human interaction and effect on the world was more apparent than ever. A.N. Whitehead was searching for where technology came from where Bertrand Russell’s wanted to predict where technology was going. But like I stated before, the two, as well as McLuhan are simply trying to better understand the human relationship with technology.

medium is the message

In McLuhan’s “medium is the message” he begins to share his views on technology very early on. McLuhan views all technology as extensions of ourselves. And that individually the different technologies mean nothing; unless they have some contexts to be connected to. The first example that he gives is that a Machine on its own is pointless. To derive meaning out of the machine then one must use it for a specific purpose. So if you use a machine to make food then that is the message. However, it does not matter which kind of food you make. In the next paragraph McLuhan describes as a light bulb being pure information. And that it is a “medium without a message”. McLuhan goes through a few different examples of this until he returns to the light bulb in the following paragraph. Where he states that the context of the light bulb could be brain surgery or a baseball game at night. Neither of these things could not exist if it were not for the invention of the light bulb. This concept sums up what the phrase “medium is the message” means. The medium, which is any technology, controls human action. But the uses of that medium are extremely diverse. For instance, there are millions of different things you can do with a light bulb. I could read a book, eat dinner with my family, or like McLuhan stated watch a baseball game at night. The best example that McLuhan used was in regards to the railway. The railway did not invent movement or the wheel but used the two, and other technologies, to create something completely different. Because of the railway there have been new cities and towns that would never have existed. For example my hometown of Malvern only exists because of the mainline that heads towards Philadelphia. McLuhan add’s valuable insight into technology and how it effects our lives. Not only does new technology help us with specific tasks but adds thousands of different task’s that before could not have been done. No one thought of selling tickets for a night baseball game before the invention of the light bulb. But after its invention it became rather obvious to do so. In the end I found McLuhan’s “medium is the message” very insightful and has good input on what technology does for our everyday lives.

Arne Naess

 

In the reading “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Way Ecology Movement. A Summery”, Arne Naess goes into the two types of Ecology. The first one which has drawn the most attention from society today is the Shallow Ecology. While the Deep Ecology movement is competing for attention with the Shallow.

The Shallow Ecology view is based on fighting pollution and recourse depletion in developed countries. This has drawn the most attention from society, but they force their policies on economy mostly by threats. It isn’t a bad thing that they want to reduce pollution, and preserve our recourses. For example the shallow movement wants to preserve the rainforest because it is nature’s medicine cabinet; not because it has a right to be there. Humans think that the rainforest is only as good as what it can offer us.  There is a bigger picture that many of us fail to see which deep ecology tries to better understand.

Deep Ecology has a deeper understanding with the relationship between man-kind and nature. Instead of seeing nature there for the taking, they believe that it has the right to be there undisturbed. They believe we need to use nature to survive but we need to take with gratitude; it isn’t our right to take from it. Everything has an equal right to live and flourish.  But we see ourselves as an anthropocentrism (we are the most significant species in the world). With this thinking we have alienated ourselves from other species. The Deep movement has come to terms with our ignorance when it comes to relationship in nature. We don’t understand how big of a disturbance we are causing. In today’s time ecologist think that we need “soft technique”. What I took from this was that we need a combination of industrial and agricultural techniques, not being focused on one side or the other. Deep Ecology is more philosophy of ecology rather than science based theories.

I agree with the Deeper Ecology mindset, but at the same time the Shallow Ecology thinking brings light to the problem to the modern world, who doesn’t realize how much we are destroying it. After reading this I began to think are we ever going to be able to create technologies that will actually help the environment rather than destroy it?

One Direction

I’m going to focus on one particular point in the reading One Direction by Herbert Marcuse, where he talks about how technological progress has caused people to lose their individuality. What I took from is that the more advanced our society become we begin to lose our freedom of speech, thought, and conscience which all protect our ideas. Instead they begin to integrate a more rational and productive one. In society we either work or we will starve. I feel that in today’s day of age we have a very predetermined path for the youth to follow. We go to school, get a degree, and get a job. We do this because we already have a predetermined thought of what we want based off of social interest. The more advanced a society becomes it is more unlikely that someone will break free of what they should do and do what they want. This idea seems simple but it is fear and insecurity that keeps us from going down this path, and instead conforms to what is expected of them.

I agree with what the author is saying. Our society lives our lives being told what to do. We work more; give up more free time, because that is what is expected of us. The more advanced we become the more freedoms we give up for comfort. If we could live in a utopia do you think that we would know what to do, or would we be lost with not being told what to do?

tct5051 on Freenberg

After reading Freenberg’s article on Borgman and Heidegger I felt obliged to bring to light a few fundamental issues I had with his argument. What I mean by this is that I disagree with the way in which Freenburg framed his argument against some of Heidegger’s and Borgman’s ideas. Freenburg seemed to continuously site the vague and ambiguous nature of Heidegger’s and Borgman’s articles. He attempts to refute critical parts of their arguments by pointing out how very broad and ambiguous the claims are. However I would argue that due to the enormous nature of the topic that Heidegger and Borgman were attempting to explain that the arguments actually need to be very broad and ambiguous in order to move forward. Heidegger and Borgman were basically the first philosophers to attempt to begin to bring to light the essence of technology and the relationship between technology and humankind. Being that they were the first to take a critical approach to the topic I would argue that their arguments would need to be extremely broad and vague in order to lay the foundation on which future philosophers can build and form new arguments. Therefore I think it is illogical to site the vague nature of their arguments as a main reason to reject their claims and ideas. That is not to say that I think everyone must agree with Heidegger and Borgman but that one should not disagree with them due to their lack of specificity in some of their arguments. Nonetheless I do feel that Freenberg brought to light some important new perspectives on the positive implications of computer-mediated communication. I appreciate this perspective and think it is important to note the positive impacts of mediated communication devices so that not all technology is viewed as inherently negative due to the rather cautious and negative nature of Borgman’s and Heidegger’s arguments. In conclusion I enjoyed Freenberg’s article and agree with most of his ideas and perspectives.

Hot and Cold Media

In one section of McLuhan’s book Understanding Media, he discusses “hot” and “cold” media. Radio is a hot media while telephone is a cold media. Photographs are hot and cartoons are cold. At first I was confounded by these categorizations, but after dissecting some of his examples, it starts to make some more sense.

From what I can understand, one distinction between hot and cold media is the amount of participation by the audience. In the example mentioned above, a radio simply speaks to you but you need to talk if you use the telephone. A photograph provides far more visual information compared to a cartoon. Therefore, the audience would be required to fill the missing information on their own. We can see from this that the cold media provides less information than and needs more audience participation compared to the hot media.

One example he mentioned that threw me off was movies as a hot media and TV as cold media. While these two items are different, there are many similarities between them today. It was not until I realized this book was written in the 1960’s that I understood what he meant. This also led me to think about how the term isn’t actually dichotomous. When I think of the TV today, I would categorize it as a hot media. While I do not have the knowledge of TV development, it is likely the transition from cold to hot media was a gradual one and did not happen instantly. Even with the terms hot and cold, there are different levels of “hotness” or “coldness” of different types of media.

With that said, one point of interest is how the term fits into the world today. Because of the internet, we have new forms of media that did not exist when McLuhan wrote this book. It seems to have a large amount of audience participation like other cold media, but at the same time, massive amounts of information can be provided not requiring any participation like hot media. Social media would be a good example of that. How do you think Twitter and Facebook fit into this idea of hot and cold media?