Just to be clear, the grammatical error in the title is intentional; however, fifty percent of people wouldn't realize it. All of MY readers did though I'm sure! ;) I thought of this question the other day when I was walking around town (I generally get my blog inspirations during general wanderings) thinking of my next blog post. I had recently tried posting a Status in Facebook and was informed that I had surpassed the 420 character limit. I then remembered that Twitter limits to a mere 140 characters. That got me to thinking: if we are limiting our thoughts to think in short bursts are we making our brains more efficient and concise, or are we stymieing our creativity and deep thought? One could argue that we do in fact still have those deep thoughts and creativity, it's just that we pull out the nuggets and what's important. That could be, but if you browse through Facebook's Live Feed, or Twitters Tweets, how much of that stuff is "important nuggets"? "Really craving a blueberry muffin" "Wish the kids would go to bed"... and so on.
There is another power at play here: accessibility to information. No doubt, social media has helped spread important information globally in just minutes. Take for example the uprisings in the Middle East. Facebook not only helped with the organization of demonstrations, but it also brought the event to the world. Previously, we would have had to wait for the reporters to tell us something on the evening news. Now, we simply look at the status updates and the articles and pictures being uploaded, shared and "liked" around the world in REAL TIME. The internet allows everyone the opportunity to be heard; that includes people that have nothing of value to say, or that can barely speak. It is my thought that reading should bring me "something": either make me smarter, make me ponder something new, or stimulate my brain in fun ways. Too much of the crap I read does none of the above. In fact, with all the grammar and spelling mistakes that I am inundated with, I might in fact be getting "stupider"!
Truly, I have no right to be preaching here. When I write, I surely make grammatical errors, and if I don't, then it is just dumb luck. I can't tell you the rules of when to use who vs. whom, or when to use a semicolon vs. a simple comma or basically any English writing rules. The bottom line is this: In the "olden" days, there was a professional editor that was responsible for reading anything that came to the public's eyes. Now, we are constantly bombarded with raw, unedited, often pointless material every minute of every day. It's a double edged sword, and I'm not sure which side is sharper. Are we getting smarter or stupider? Did this post stimulate your brain, or was it just a waste of time?
This post makes me think of the old rhyme we used to taunt the boys with in elementary school:
ReplyDelete"Boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider!"
So, you stimulated my memory... mission accomplished?
Fair questions, all. I'd say that nothing we read makes us stupider, though believing it might.;) However, we could easily be getting lazier from reading all sorts of "crap" as you put it. Poor grammar afloat may make us fell justified in not trying to learn the right way to say something; we can publish stuff the way others do. And, if we are constantly reading so much shallow material, we may become too lazy to delve into the deeper subjects. As a 'not ver smart" man once said, "Stupid is as stupid does." I'm not sure what that means. (I think he must have been smarteer than I.) But I CAN find meaning in "lazy is as lazy does". Lazy, in turn, encourages you to stay stupid, if that's where you started, or just stay anywhere you are rather than reach beyond. And I am convinced that we are getting lazier. Yo' Mama
ReplyDelete