I have fallen for Twitter in a big way. I use Tweetdeck and Tweetdeck for iPhone. These two programs make Twitter simpler and easier than the already simple and easy web version. I think Twitter has a strong appeal for people with ADD. It is constant stimulus with short thoughts. I can think a thought, share it, and have other people comment on it almost immediately. This is what makes it great, it is also what makes it dangerous.
The internet has not helped my ADD. It is easy to believe that my brain’s wiring is faulty, and I have no doubt that to a certain extent it is. Yet, from what I’ve learned in abnormal psychology, our brains are rather malleable. I used to do something called hyperfocusing when I read. I would be drawn so deeply into a book that people had to shake me to get my attention. I don’t do that anymore. The problem is I’ve trained my body to think in five paragraphs or less (blogging), and I could potentially be training it to think in 140 characters or less. While this can be a lot of information, it cannot have much depth. You can’t structure an argument on twitter, merely state its outcome.
Twitter won’t kill blogging, and blogging won’t kill books. We are not going to leave behind hundreds of years of the reading masses, and thousands of years of literate culture. That said, we are in a culture that reads less and less of more and more. If this is true than we need to increase literacy. We cannot forget how to read and follow a detailed, structured argument, otherwise we will quickly become victim to short, pithy statements that “feel” right.
Well said, Mr. Kinnon. And unfortunately, I think (or feel) that that is what most of my English classes have come to–pithy statements about whether or not things “feel” right. Alas, I will take comfort in the warm bosom of philosophy.
But to try and make an interesting comment on your post… It is somewhat ironic that we are reading and writing on a much grander scale (msn, blogging, twitter, facebook etc.), and nevertheless have less profound things to say. I wonder if this is the result of the effects technology has on the mind, or if it is the result of the mass of information itself. That is, it certainly becomes harder to find the jewels of contemporary thought when there is so much thought to sift through. Not only that, but technology makes it possible for the uneducated class to have a much louder voice than was previously possible. 150 years ago it wasn’t possible for anyone to voice their opinion to such a wide audience. The people who were able to do that were educated, and even for them, in some cases the audience was much smaller.
But to take my little rant another step, technology (or more specifically the internet) is democracy. We are back in the southern states of America. Except in this case we are sending tweets and writing blogs, instead of toting guns and riding horses.
Yeah, and whoever has the biggest font wins. I think there is a democratizing aspect to the internet. And yet it seems the biggest voices, even on the internet, are those who already had a big voice whether it be from radio, TV, entertainment, etc.
I think I lean towards the idea that not only is there too much information, but also that there is too much noise. We have layers and layers of commentary, without enough original material. I’m as guilty of that here, my thoughts are informed by much reading, and yet I don’t bother to go through the effort of referencing my ideas. I spout and walk away. The meat, the solid food, is so hard to find.