Month: September 2023

“Does the Internet Make You Dumber” by Nicolas Carr makes a better argument because it provides significant evidence by proving the claim with studies. I agree that the internet negatively affects humans. Carr mentions how the internet can lead to decreased attention, and everything we do requires our ability to focus and concentrate. Carr backs up his claim with studies, such as the study at Cornell where half the students were allowed to use their laptops during lectures and the other half weren’t. The results showed that the half that used the internet did not perform as well on the subsequent test on the lecture as the students who were not able to use the internet. Not using the internet allows you to focus on one task at a time such as doing homework on paper. You are able to focus on that one paper until it is finished because you aren’t on the internet trying to multitask.

In “Does the Internet Make You Smarter” by Clay Shirky argues that the use of the Internet allows for the world to be global and information to spread faster. Shirky uses Wikipedia as an example however, this is a bad example because Wikipedia is not always correct because anyone is allowed to edit the information that is posted. Shirky’s argument is less effective because he does not have examples to back up his claim as Carr does. Another example would be the use of news and the spread of misinformation. The news channels are not always correct and people often listen and believe everything that the news says even if it is not true.

Appiah’s argument appeals to me more because I agree with him about the fact we need to coexist. If we can’t coexist as humans, then we will never be able to agree on any subject. However, coexistence doesn’t mean that you have to agree, it’s about the idea that you can agree and disagree on topics. I agree with Gladwell that activism needs to be high risk because it shows the dedication someone has for that cause. In today’s world, most people participate in “activism” to say that they do, not because they are dedicated to that cause. I think that there needs to be a balance between activism and the ability to coexist. There is a fine line between when someone should participate in activism compared to when we just need to be able to coexist.

Gladwell mentions that “we seem to have forgotten what activism is” and what he means by this is that we don’t know how and what activism is because we are influenced so easily by others on social media. This means we sometimes blindly follow others on social media without being able to communicate with people in person. Social media activism is less effective than earlier forms because there is no leadership. Gladwell mentions that successful activism comes with a leader and should be organized and social media does not provide leadership or an organized structure. On social media everyone has ideas and no one to follow up to and therefore nothing gets done and there is no action. I agree with Gladwell’s assessment regarding social media activism, I feel as though everyone has something to say on social media but when it comes time to fight for what you believe in no one has anything to say. Activism in person is a much stronger fight than words on social media.

There were some aspects of the text that confused me and it was related to the stories that he tells. I had a hard time understanding the way that the stories correlated with the message he was trying to tell.

Cosmopolitanism is the ability to engage with other cultures and societies on a global scale with different beliefs but have an open mind to engage and listen to these beliefs with respect. The basic tenets of Appiah’s philosophical rubric is that we don’t need to believe in everything that everyone believes in, we just need to be able to coexist and have respect. I agree with his philosophy because being able to communicate with others regardless of beliefs is essential for society as a whole.