What were you thinking?

The subject of whether (or how) our use of technology is changing the way we think is being richly discussed. Since my last post, the New York Times has run several stories that develop the theme more fully.

An article on Internet reading covers the debate on how online reading (particularly by students) stacks up against reading books. I find it striking to hear academics defending online reading’s value: these skills, they argue, will help make the next generation more employable and further, reading books is inefficient: it takes a long time to read a 400-page book and much less to scan summaries or pre-digested opinion about the book. And of course, children themselves prefer it – and, as exasperated parents see it – reading online is preferable to not reading at all.

I wonder what the word ‘reading’ means in this context. Are we simply talking about the ability to interpret written words? We’re certainly not talking about the complex thinking skills required to construct internally the argument or narrative of that 400-page book – which surely are skills that this employer is keenly interested in -- as should every employer of knowledge workers. How is it that we no longer expect our children to read Pride and Prejudice or To Kill a Mockingbird – which are certainly as accessible and relevant today as a generation ago when teens and young adults were expected to read them? (For this I have hard evidence: my 14-year old has not only read these books but savored them.)

This article on reading, and one that appeared in today’s Times , point to another dynamic that I think is worth noting: an increasing expectation of controlling the narrative in one’s own real or creative life. Teens interviewed in the reading article said that they prefer reading online because they can control the narrative (if reading fiction) or the information they receive in non-fiction articles and blogs. An interactive short story site allows readers to change plot points that they don’t like. (Hey – in your version, maybe Romeo and Juliet don’t die after all!) In today’s article, I learned of a new technology tool that allows you to go immediately to voicemail: the recipient thinks you called, but you intentionally go direct to voicemail so that you don’t have to interact with the other person. This is called, I learned, ‘indirect communication,’ which “may be turning some people into digital-era solipsists more interested in broadcasting information than in real time give-and-take.” Interacting with other people opens the possibility of being challenged: maybe the other person has a different viewpoint, heaven forbid! Back in the day, one took that as an opportunity to learn from others, or at least more finely tune one's own argument. I now realize how hopelessly out of date that concept is.

I can only imagine that the logical conclusion to this is a future world much like a wonderful film I saw this week (at the always-challenging Traverse City Film Festival), Sleep Dealers, in which people willingly plug their central nervous system into a corporate network that uses their brains to direct the production of a robotized workforce in other countries. If you’re not interested in using your brain, I suppose it’s a resource that can be commoditized like anything else.