Interneducation: It's Not Going Anywhere

There are two choices in life: climb the mountain or lie in the valley. By that, I mean one can either evolve to overcome his obstacles or stagnate into mediocrity. For the human race in general, we have taken the former route, constantly finding new ways to progress through technological advancement. Within the last twenty years or so, technology has become the bedrock of our society, an unavoidable entity with its arms outstretched into every facet of our daily lives, like education for example. Public school systems and collegiate institutions are now experimenting with the Internet as a new mode for education, utilizing interactive educational websites and even going as far to incorporate social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter into their lesson plans. While there are many proponents of "Interneducation" as I call it, there a large amount of opponents as well. Critics of this movement claim that it depersonalizes the learning experience, citing the atmosphere of a classroom environment as almost as vital as the actual information being taught. Is there a clear answer to this issue? I don't believe so, but I do believe that while there are pros and cons to Interneducation, it is smarter to ride its wave rather than stubbornly crash into it.

Without a doubt, there are benefits to introducing the Internet into our modern education system. Websites with interactive games and activities help explain concepts more easily to visual learners. Video-sharing websites like Youtube and Vimeo can be utilized to show films and documentaries that are relevant to the subjects at hand. Many colleges, including my own, post lectures online for their students for extra review. Even websites like Facebook or Twitter, websites that were initially designed exclusively for social interaction, have been used in recent years to help extend discussions beyond the classroom.

Besides the educational benefits, online education is convenient and less expensive. Students can take classes online in the privacy of their own homes, making commuting obsolete and allowing students to not have to pay the additional costs of attending a university like housing, meal plans, etc. Again, one cannot deny that there are perks to using something so ingrained into our daily lives to our own advantage. However, to say that there aren’t any drawbacks would be naïve.

A major criticism of Interneducation is the depersonalization of education. By giving students the freedom of learning from their own home rather than attending class in person, it eliminates face-to-face interaction almost entirely. A major component of the education system, aside from the scholastic portion, is the social aspect. Students learn life skills by having to converse with their peers daily, but if they choose to learn in a virtual setting, it is arguable that they will not develop as well socially. Besides peer interaction, creating a virtual environment for learning means that there is less of a connection between the student and the teacher. Students lose the ability to ask questions because of the virtual barrier between them and their professors.

The Internet does completely revamp the concept of education, which for thousands of years has operated on the basis of the physical, face-to-face setting. But now that we have this arguably more convenient way of conveying information to students, is it something that we should embrace or reject?

I say both, to certain degrees.

At this stage in human history, trying to stop the Internet from influencing education is completely futile. We are living in an age in which technology has wedged itself into the foundation of our daily lives, having at least a small say in everything that we do. We take the Subway to get to work. We use cell phones to connect with people over long distances. Our food is engineered to taste certain ways. All of our finances are documented and held online. Unless you’re in some weird cult or you’re Amish (the “or” may not be necessary), your daily life is affected to some extent by technology. That is why I believe that we should embrace Interneducation because as our world progresses technologically, societal concepts (education, government, banking, etc.) naturally must change with those tides.

However, that’s not to say we should become entirely reliant on it. I personally thrive in a physical classroom setting, as do billions of other people. I don’t think that idea should ever become obsolete. Using the Internet occasionally as a tool, not a substitute, can prove to be helpful. In my high school, teachers frequently used Youtube to show us videos related to the material that we were covering. Many of the science classes that I took also made me participate in several online activities that helped me visually understand certain ideas better than a lecture could ever help. So I do value online education, but I do not hold it above the standard method.

An analogy that I can draw between this is with electronic music. In recent years, electronic music has gained a more substantial fan base than at any point in its history. Though encompassing a wide variety of subgenres, electronic music is generally characterized by digital instruments such as synthesizers, beats, and textures, as opposed to physical instruments like the acoustic guitar and the piano. For example:

The appeal in the music created by mainstream electronic artists nowadays like Skrillex, Deadmau5, and Porter Robinson lies in its danceable quality. Many enjoy popular electronic music because it provides energetic, fast-paced music that focuses less on evoking thought and more on inducing adrenaline. While many appreciate electronic music for what it is, critics tend to describe it as loud, thoughtless, and emotionless. 

Personally, my favorite music incorporates elements of electronic music but doesn’t rely on it entirely. Artists like Passion Pit, Radiohead, and The xx provide a balance between physical instrumentation and electronic music, and it is that very balance that I appreciate most of all. For example:

But there are no right answers with music. There are only opinions.

Coming full circle, Interneducation is something that can be completely appreciated by certain students, while to others it can be completely despised. For people like me, online education can be beneficial in doses. The point is that education is entirely subjective in the way that we feel we best attain it. If people feel that they learn best in an online setting, they should take online classes. If people prefer the physical classroom setting, they should enroll at a university. But what people should keep in mind is that they live in the Information Age, a time when knowledge is as accessible to the mind as air is to the lungs. The Internet isn’t going anywhere; if we can’t accept that, we won’t be going anywhere either. 

Mind Over M.M.O.R.P.G.

            In our day and age, it’s becoming increasingly popular to try to point at art and saddle it with the blame for bad things that happen in our world. Whether it's through television, film, music, painting, or any other mode of creative expression, it seems that it’s becoming progressively more difficult to project thoughts or ideas in an artistic manner without being accused of doing something harmful, disturbing, or evil. A more modern example of this ridiculous cultural misconception is video gaming. As society transitioned into the Information Age, video games, a product of our newfound technological mindset, began to rise in popularity. Like all forms of art, video games are meant to engage the mind and senses in active entertainment. However, critics of video gaming claim that not only do video games desensitize its users from reality but they also claim that it can cause people to act on violent impulses because of their complete immersion in virtual reality. What do I think personally? I think it’s a sensational statement and a complete load. In today’s edition, I’m going to talk about the history of gaming, the actual effects that video games have on the human mind and explain why I believe that people shouldn’t waste their time worrying about this.

The video game industry exploded in the 80’s and 90’s with games like Pac-Man, Asteroids, Super Mario Bros., and Donkey Kong ushering in a new wave of virtual entertainment. Video gaming was a form of mindless fun, all about getting high scores and trying to one-up your friends, but as time progressed and cartoonish graphics began to become repetitive to the public, there was a noticeable change in the dynamic of both the visual quality and attitude of gaming around the turn of the New Millennium. Video games like Halo and Call of Duty (personal favorite) created an entirely different perspective on gaming. It wasn’t just about winning anymore; it was about being. With incredibly realistic visuals and serious, though mildly cheesy, dialogues and plots, video games created a new reality for people, a second life that after a long day of work or school they could retreat to and complete quests and objectives in a virtual body.

Inevitably, critics began to voice their concerns. People believed that video games like Halo and COD that are centered in violence would cause gamers to become desensitized from violence, blood, and gore and therefore lose their grasp on the concepts of morals and ethics. Some even suggested that those kinds of games would propel people to commit murders, rapes, and other unspeakable crimes because of their gradual recession from reality. However, the actual research that has been put towards discovering a tie between video games and desensitization has almost entirely yielded results that go against the claim. 

This isn’t to say that video games don’t have an effect on gamers. Many studies, including one by the American Psychological Association, claim that video games do lead to an increase in aggressive behavior. However, as it is stated in the APA study as well as in one reported by the Washington Post, the aggression is not caused by violence depicted in the video games but rather by the competitive atmosphere produced by gaming in general. It makes perfect sense. Competitive people that compete in competitive activities naturally become more aggressive.

In fact, to further go against critics' claims, researchers claim video games actually yield many positive benefits. MSNBC reported that studies have shown that video games help elevate people's abilities to multitask, a skill popularized by the technological world and now a necessity within it. Other skills like quick thinking and sociability are shown to be enhanced by the video game experience.

So basically, what you get from all of this is that a group of people complained about video games making kids violent but was then shown that its concerns are incredibly minimal, almost unnecessary. I personally think that video games are great. I play games from all different spectrums of gaming, ranging from violent video games like Call of Duty to fantasy-based games like Skyrim to classics like Super Smash Brothers. Though I'm not as huge of a gamer as I once was, there was a point in my life where I would play games at any given opportunity and yeah, I did get angry and yell at my screen when I lost. It's rumored that if you stop by my dorm room and listen really closely, you can hear me cursing at my roommates when they lap me on Mario Kart, but have I ever wanted to kill them or harm them in any way because I lost? Absolutely not because I’m sane.

My music analogy to this violence claim is to Marilyn Manson and his "involvement" in the Columbine shooting of 1999. The Columbine shooting was one of the most horrific massacres in recent history, carried out by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, two students at Columbine High School. Harris and Klebold, who killed 13 people in the shooting and then committed suicide, were reported as fans of goth-rock musician Marilyn Manson. Manson is known for his violent, dark lyrical content and onstage imagery, which media outlets began to cite as the sole motivation behind the killers' plan. For months, Manson was dogged as a murderer and instigator by the media until he fired back at critics in a Rolling Stone op-ed "Columbine: Whose Fault Is It?" In the article, which I think is one of the most brilliant things I've ever read, Manson responded to the accusations of his influence on the situation saying that:

1. The media falsely reported that the killers were inspired by him and were in fact not even fans of his music. Because they were reported as dressed in gothic clothing, which was also later reported as false, the media immediately attributed the clothing to him because he was the figurehead of that genre of clothing and music.

2. Society is to blame as the instigator and the audience of its problems. As Manson puts it: "When it comes down to who's to blame for the high school murders in Littleton, Colorado, throw a rock and you'll hit someone who's guilty. We're the people who sit back and tolerate children owning guns, and we're the ones who tune in and watch the up-to-the-minute details of what they do with them."

3. People tried to pin the murders on him because the shooters were children and that society is contradictory in the way that it approaches personal responsibility. As Manson once again adeptly puts it: "Isn't killing just killing, regardless if it's in Vietnam or Jonesboro, Arkansas? Why do we justify one, just because it seems to be for the right reasons? Should there ever be a right reason? If a kid is old enough to drive a car or buy a gun, isn't he old enough to be held personally responsible for what he does with his car or gun? Or if he's a teenager, should someone else be blamed because he isn't as enlightened as an eighteen-year-old?"

I'm not even a fan of Marilyn Manson's music, but the man's point is strong and simple. In our society, blame is the game and personal accountability is a myth. We all try to point out the negative aspects and possibilities of something without first looking at it objectively. In Manson's case, he was falsely accused of inspiring murders with baseless evidence that was later proved to be completely false. On top of that, it's ridiculous to assert that a person that had no direct involvement with the murders should be scapegoated while the actual murderers, troubled though they may have been, are released from their responsibility. 

Coming full circle, in the case of video games, there was a media frenzy over the possibility that they could cause people to act upon violent impulses, but after years of research, an overwhelming majority of studies have shown that the threats of desensitization and the transformation of adolescents into mindless murdering machines are just works of fiction inspired by fear. In the rare cases (and by rare, I mean really rare because I can't find any cases that directly say it) in which a person claims that they committed a crime because of a video game, does that automatically mean that the blame should be shifted off of them? Does that mean that every time something horrible happens in this country, we should blame it on the perpetrator's influences? 

Hypothetical situation: I am a huge fan of Shakespeare and also engaged. Because I am such an avid fan of Shakespeare, I convince my fiancé to commit suicide along with me because I want us to die like Romeo and Juliet. 

Does that mean that we should blame Shakespeare for my actions? Should his works be banned in classrooms across the nations out of fear that he'll inspire kids to do the same thing? In this situation, I took it upon myself to become immersed in his work and am also the person that directly killed myself and convinced my fiancé to kill herself as well. But by society's logic, I shouldn't be held accountable because I really liked Shakespeare.

That is the kind of logic that needs to be dispelled in our country - logic that is rooted in fear. The two concepts are contradictory to each other, yet that combination of thoughts is the media's trademark and still manages to convince millions of people every day to believe the most absolutely inane things.

 Do I believe it’s unhealthy to play video games every waking moment of my life? Yes but not because I think I’m going to become a sociopathic murderer. I think it’s unhealthy because for one to prefer to live in a virtual reality as opposed to the one he or she was born into is a pathetic existence and arguably not even an existence at all. But regardless, video games are helpful when I want a momentary escape from reality because everyone needs that catharsis. So until someone can prove to me that video games totally eliminate empathy and inspire me to literally kill, it’s back to Super Smash Bros. for me.

Dream Digital

As a little kid, I dreamt of a society reigned by technological advancements that far outstretched what we as humans believed was achievable at the time, and by that I mean I dreamt of owning a jetpack and being able to shoot lasers out of my eyes. But as farfetched and science-fictional those ideas seem, our global society is rapidly evolving into a more technologically wired body of people, one that will produce ideas and inventions similar in inconceivability. While jetpacks and eye lasers aren't necessarily on the near horizon, there are many new technologies that we now take for granted that twenty years ago seemed like something out of a dream; touch-screen phones, the iPod, laptops, Netflix, and many more commonplace accessories in our modern age prove that our society is no longer dreaming digitally but rather living digitally. Not only that, but we have essentially become products of this new wave of technology, adapting at a cognitive level to meet the needs of daily life. Though we are supposedly moving forwards with each new technological advancement, are we actually moving backwards mentally? Or is this actually creating a more efficient human mind? In the first post of my blog, I will discuss what our society has become under the influence of technology and why I believe it is doing more good for our world than bad.

Technology has had a fascinating effect on our modern world. Using an iPhone or a laptop has become a habitual motion like breathing and blinking. We constantly check our text messages as if we're scratching an itch that can't be suppressed. The Internet has given birth to a new form of vicarious life thanks to social networking websites like Twitter and Facebook that allow others to constantly be up to date on how and where we are. All of these examples show that society is slowly shifting away from the concept of complete privacy and gravitating towards a more open, connected world that encourages the intertwining of each other's lives. However, technology has had more than just a globally holistic impact on mankind. According to some researchers, our excessive exposure to electronics has affected us on a cognitive level as well. In "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Nicholas Carr explains through the aid of various sources that our constant interactions with technology have re-shaped the way that our brains process information. With technological advancement comes an increased need for efficiency and immediacy of results, and as technology transforms, its subjects, humans, morph with it. Our brains have become subconsciously programmed to "power browse" rather than delve into information and search for its meaning. Just as Google wastes no time in delivering results to our queries, we attempt to waste as little time as possible when presented with texts of any kind.

Now some people would argue that this cognitive transformation is bad. In an article published by the New York Times, researchers claim that though our constant access to technology has improved our ability to multitask, it has undermined our focus, making concentration somewhat of a chore. I can personally say that I struggle to concentrate on reading long materials and am guilty of subconscious desires for instant understanding of them. I do believe that there are consequences of this new mind that we are beginning to develop, but the fact of the matter is that our world is quickening the pace at which it moves. Because of that, I believe that our minds are compensating for speed by decreasing our utilization of concentration. Does that mean that we are becoming less intelligent? Absolutely not; it means that our brains are reallocating the levels of which certain cognitive abilities are utilized though not totally eliminating their functions. We are still just as smart as we were before the Technological Age began, arguably even more intelligent. Our minds just operate on a different setting than they did twenty years ago. They are adapting to work efficiently within our progressive world.

Of course, this situation is entirely subjective in terms of how you view it, but in order to argue my point, I would like to make analogy between this and Radiohead, more specifically a drastic shift in their sound in between two albums. Radiohead is one of my favorite bands of all time, and the cover art of their album In Rainbows is actually the background of my blog but I digress. In 1997, Radiohead released OK Computer, which to this day is regarded as one of the hallmark albums of the 1990's rock music scene. By producing hits like "Karma Police" and "Paranoid Android," OK Computer had perfected the British alternative rock sound that had begun to creep into the mainstream music scene in the 90's and had cemented the band as eventual rock legends. In 2000, Radiohead returned with their follow-up album Kid A. The album showed a distinct shift from the alternative rock-based, guitar-driven sound that they had displayed on OK Computer and instead toward a heavily electronic-influenced sound, something that was completely uncommon in rock music. Songs like "Idioteque" showcased the band experimenting in a new, chaotic, electronic sound that struck many longtime Radiohead fans as strange and unfamiliar, even alienating many that were not willing to accept this change. However, Kid A was a massive critical and commercial success and is routinely ranked as one of the greatest albums in recent history. I'm not a huge fan of Pitchfork Media, but the magazine recently released a list of rankings of the Top 200 Albums from 1996-2011 as well as releasing a Top 200 Albums of the 2000's list back in 2009. On the first list, Kid A is ranked 2nd only to OK Computer, and on the second list, it is ranked 1st. Rankings aside, it is still greatly debated among Radiohead fans as to which album is better.

What I am trying to get at with my Radiohead obsession is that it is impossible to say which album is superior. Both albums are distinct in their approaches to crafting songs and both were successes. OK Computer was a great album, but in order for the band to progress, they had to reinvent themselves. When they did, their new work was appreciated just as much as their older work was.

Coming full circle, both versions of our brains - the pre-technologically-exposed and the modern one - have helped us achieve our goals in our then-current and current settings. They are both distinct in the way that they approach certain situations and in how they process information, but they are both good for their own reasons. And because our world is rapidly evolving, in order for us to hold on for the ride that is technological progression, our minds must develop to meet the situations that we are presented with. Can we say which brain is better - old or new? I say that we can't because it's like comparing apples and oranges. These different minds are stronger and weaker than each other in certain aspects, and they are both most effective in the environments in which they were bred. The most important thing to know is that our brain is adapting to keep up with the needs of our daily lives, and with that in mind, I can rest easy knowing that my brain is functioning properly, and though skeptics of the new developing mind may not be in favor of it now, I feel that just as Kid A eventually became accepted amongst Radiohead fans, our new mind will also eventually become appreciated.