John Noble (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jackofallgeeks) wrote2006-09-20 09:41 am
jackofallgeeks) wrote2006-09-20 09:41 am
Ignorance is bliss.
lj-userpic: wrath
This Article, which I read yesterday... I don't know. I can't really process how it makes me feel; 'enraged' is the closest I can come, though maybe 'dumbfounded' is a better term. My vocabulary fails me. I can not understand how it could be said casually, almost pleasantly, that in the future most people won't be able to read, and that's OK, good even. To imply that we will be better off whn all u c is sheit like ths, txt messaging and AOL-grammar being the norm. People aren't aware enough of their environment as it is, when they can read and choose not to, and there's supposed to be an advantage when people simply can't read?
OK, ok, yeah, they aren't talking about complete illiteracy. They're talking about... what, grown men reading at a fourth grade level (or lower) and that being OK? -shakes head- That still sits wrong with me; it makes me ill. One of my great vices is that of intellectual elitism, that I feel superior by virtue of my education (sometimes, I think, justifiably, though there's a lot I don't know, especially the sort of knowledge one can only get through experience). But to say that someone might be better off, or even just as well, for knowing less?
The bit, I think, that really sticks me is that the article reduces man to a cog in The great Machine. Some cogs are specially designed, sculpted and honed and taught how to read for a very specific purpose. other cogs, which needn't be so delicately handled to perform their function, get hard-caste into a crude form that serves it's purpose. No need expending extra effort on a cog if it'll work just fine as is. My personal belief is that knowledge refines and perfects man; that man is better as such for knowing more. granted, it's not the only virtue, nor the best, but it is worthy of pursuit.
Gah, morning meeting to attend.
This Article, which I read yesterday... I don't know. I can't really process how it makes me feel; 'enraged' is the closest I can come, though maybe 'dumbfounded' is a better term. My vocabulary fails me. I can not understand how it could be said casually, almost pleasantly, that in the future most people won't be able to read, and that's OK, good even. To imply that we will be better off whn all u c is sheit like ths, txt messaging and AOL-grammar being the norm. People aren't aware enough of their environment as it is, when they can read and choose not to, and there's supposed to be an advantage when people simply can't read?
OK, ok, yeah, they aren't talking about complete illiteracy. They're talking about... what, grown men reading at a fourth grade level (or lower) and that being OK? -shakes head- That still sits wrong with me; it makes me ill. One of my great vices is that of intellectual elitism, that I feel superior by virtue of my education (sometimes, I think, justifiably, though there's a lot I don't know, especially the sort of knowledge one can only get through experience). But to say that someone might be better off, or even just as well, for knowing less?
The bit, I think, that really sticks me is that the article reduces man to a cog in The great Machine. Some cogs are specially designed, sculpted and honed and taught how to read for a very specific purpose. other cogs, which needn't be so delicately handled to perform their function, get hard-caste into a crude form that serves it's purpose. No need expending extra effort on a cog if it'll work just fine as is. My personal belief is that knowledge refines and perfects man; that man is better as such for knowing more. granted, it's not the only virtue, nor the best, but it is worthy of pursuit.
Gah, morning meeting to attend.
no subject
Note the date on the meat of the article, under the advertisement under the italicized text. December 25, 2025.
The impression I get is that this article is a semi-dystopian illustration, used to emphasise a point. Namely, that he agrees with you, that there is more to reading, and to education, than simply accomplishing a specified job.
Yes, the statistic for the present is appalling. Statistics usually are. Frankly, though, this is nothing new. You'll remember that you yourself were royally screwed over in the literacy asn spelling departments by our oh so wonderful educational system. Is it a wonder that your peers, a disgusting amount whose parents either didn't care or (as a consequence of their own botched education) weren't equipped to address such a problem, were unable to recover as well as you have?
The problems plaguing our educational system are anything but new. Some of the oldest and most deeply rooted problems are nearing anything from 1 to 3 centuries old. The issue is that, with each iteration, the system degrde even further, especially when compounded with a practical, rather than a liberal, philosophy of education. Music, art, and archaic languages have fallen by the wayside. Literature, history, and philosophy are constantly questioned for their worth. Is it such a surprise that literacy itself will be next on the hit list?
When the biggest concern of a college education is what job you'll be able to get with your classes, when schools are more concerned with passing students than teaching them, is it a wonder that people would consider the idea of treating us as robots, equipped with the minimal information necessary to perform the required tasks? Would it be going too far to say that we are rapidly becoming technologically advanced savages? Or that we've already reached that point?
no subject