“McLuhan and Media’s Messages” § (pp. 22–26) in “Old Media, New Media, and Knowledge” from J. D. Applen poses the idea that digital platforms are responsible for newer generations’ behavior while researching. I dare to say, though, that these platforms are also somewhat responsible for how we write creatively. Even further, these also influence how we communicate with others orally and through texts. This way, a network of connections can be formed between individuals who have never met each other and yet establish a deep-rooted community.
What’s the drama?
Older generations have expressed their concerns about how fast these new technologies grow and severely influence younger generations’s behavior. Applen says, “The technology allows us easy access to information, but this technology has also changed our relationship to it, as now we do not read as deeply as we used to; instead, we skip from URL to URL.” This assumes a negative connotation to how fast we consume content online without fully processing it or analyzing it.
The good side of digital platforms.
New technologies and the digital platforms that come with them are a resource, not our literary enemy. Instead, we have adapted to use these platforms “more efficiently” to satisfy our timely needs. Search engines like Google are used accordingly, as claimed by the students in my Writing for Digital Spaces class. To this, the searches are based on the reason behind the search. For example, if one wants to know the meaning of a word that only takes one search without even accessing any website. Google will display it for you as soon as you hit search. In this case, there is no need to further explore the etymology of the word, we already got what we needed.
Nonetheless, not every search would be this easy. While researching for class projects, students have said that they stop looking for more information as soon as they find the necessary data to complete them. Only continue their information-digging if they are interested in the topic. But this is just the beginning.
How far does the efficiency go?
A simple example of our immediate access to information and content is what is commonly known as “iPad babies.” This term refers to the generation that was raised by computers and laptops instead of physical interaction and outside activities. Think now of an American household that partakes in its society’s “grind culture,” where self-worth is gained by achieving goals and higher financial acquisition power. Even in a household with two caregivers, most of their time is spent working extra hours to afford their bills. After working double shifts, the average caregiver has no energy not only to cook dinner, feed the child, and perform hygiene routines but also to help the child with homework, play with them, and give them more attention.
Even if they manage to do all of these things, there’s no time left for personal time or full rest. That is why giving an iPad to the child to entertain themselves or watch educational videos while the caregiver is preparing dinner it’s so much more efficient.
The consequences of these, though, show when the kid grows up with the need for constant and multiple simultaneous sources of stimulation. iPad babies are the reason why ADHD diagnoses have spiked over the past few years. Additionally, children tend to spend more time indoors watching screens than socializing with other children. This results in a lack of social intelligence that enhances the probabilities of other mental diagnoses.
The way the future is coming is different, and embracing the changes doesn’t come easy for many. However, the way we are adapting to these changes it’s neither good nor bad. Instead, it is a direct response to society’s needs and the socio-political-economic policies that affect them.
Leave a Reply