I’ve been thinking about Dreyfus’ notion that information overload becomes a bad thing. The fact that people may change their opinions on any number of topics based on the introduction of new information should not be considered a negative consequence. If people were so stubborn in their ways and stuck with their opinions regardless of what information they used to form them, where would we be as a society today? I believe in the gathering of knowledge. The Internet provides an endless amount of information on any topic imaginable. Utilizing those sources to form an opinion only makes sense. The more information we have on a subject, the better chances we have of finding the truth or forming the best opinion. This is not to say the Internet is foolproof. It is our responsibility to sift through the information when forming our opinions. This is true with any source of information. In the modern world, all information is biased. News companies have political and commercial ties which force them to display news in ways that doesn’t necessarily reflect what actually happened. Just as France would portray their role in World War II differently than the rest of the world, information can and will be biased depending on the source. Using the most resources available helps us to look past the bias of others and form our own opinions. I don’t believe the information overload Dreyfus describes to be a valid argument. If we didn’t use the information available to us, our society would not advance and thrive as we do today.
4.30.07
Jeremy Mcguire | 19-Apr-07 at 8:38 pm | Permalink
I agree Dreyfus makes it seem that we are strapped to chair and that information is crammed down our throats through media and we watch like zombies. It is true that we are bombarded with information but it still bothers me that he never once gives us the benefit of the doubt that we have the ability to varying degrees, to decipher what information is relevant and what is not. Over all I believe that more information is better than no information.
Jennifer Crabill | 23-Apr-07 at 7:12 pm | Permalink
We cannot expect the computer to take on all the responsibility of capturing users’ attention and keeping them on track and well-informed. As above students mentioned, the user still has the option of doing whatever they want with the information presented before them on the computer. CNN.com thrives off of links. I love the fact that if I am interested in a certain article, I can easily read other related articles by clicking on links. If a user is confused by the “overload” of information, it is their responsibility to sort out the information to their own liking and do what they wish with it.
Kimberly Koch | 24-Apr-07 at 7:39 pm | Permalink
I think that information overload can be a good thing too. With all the information available to us coming from all sorts of sides and opinions, we no longer have to just trust what we hear or read in the papers. We can research and make educated opinions. I think Dreyfus was worried that with the constant changing of opinions, nothing would ever be turned into action. And opinion without action really means nothing.
Angela Kinsella | 25-Apr-07 at 12:21 pm | Permalink
I agree that the information overload argument isn’t very good. Of course society is bombarded by information everyday because there are so many outlets to give it to us. There are many new technologies and just advances in general that people would not have realized 50 years ago. After each technology thrives the next step is to see how much we can do with it. Television did not always have commercials, and websites did always have pop-ups I bet. But as a society we are always looking for the newest thing and want such up-to-date information that the overload is for the individual to sift through, which considering all the other multi-tasking we do, this shouldn’t be too hard.
Ashley Swarts | 25-Apr-07 at 6:33 pm | Permalink
I think that Wes makes a good point about the people changing their opinions based on the constant introduction of new information and how this is not a bad thing. As he said, stubborness is not usually a good quality that will get you anywhere. Humans never stop learning as long as they live and the endless sources of information only provide more outlets for learning and forming your own opinion.
Krystal Kniep | 25-Apr-07 at 7:40 pm | Permalink
I don’t necessarily think information overload is a bad thing either. The internet is set up in an organized fashion that include certain links to click on what place you want to go. Although there are bad websites out there, I have never even seen them because I just avoid going to them. If anything, information overload has just helped me become more knowledgable and provides more useful information for learning.
Annie Werly | 25-Apr-07 at 9:10 pm | Permalink
The bombardment of information upon our society is in fact the case, however we have the ability to process information and discard the excess and frivilous information. However, there are certainly those who accept all they hear as truth- those people are the ones who read magazines instead of books and watch ET instead of the news or another program. Nonetheless, I don’t think information overload is generally a bad thing. I actually don’t know that it actually exists, if one resists. Our society needs the constant information, but there are different sources. One can get it from ET and Access Hollywood and MTV and the like 24/7, or one can constantly watch the news feed on CNN or other 24 hour news programs. Either version is not beneficial but one is more constructive than another.
Ryan Riordan | 26-Apr-07 at 7:22 pm | Permalink
When you talk about a particular topic you need to have some knowledge of the subject. I think you are right in that it is a good thing to gather a bunch of knowledge. When people are open minded to new knowledge and information it is beneficial to society in my opinion. What is dangerous is when people are close minded to new information. When Dreyfus talks about information overload being a bad thing, I cant say that I necesarily agree with him, because i dont see anything wrong with being well rounded with knowledge. Plus i just don’t think it’s really possible to have an information overload.
Chris Paolinetti | 26-Apr-07 at 8:58 pm | Permalink
I would agree that any information is biased - take Fox News Channel, for example: Bill O’Reilly says that his show is a “no spin zone,” but he is probably the biggest republican tool on the face of the earth.
Adam Domanico | 26-Apr-07 at 10:40 pm | Permalink
I believe you have missed the point here Wes (although I am not going to say I know for sure). I think that Dreyfus is trying to say here that being overloaded with so many different information sorces is a bad thing. I do not think that he is saying that the internet is bad because it gives us too muc information. He just raises the concern or people being introduced to so many different types of information, a lot of which are inaccurate and incomplete.
Stehpanie Prather | 27-Apr-07 at 2:26 pm | Permalink
I think there is a lot of validity to Dreyfus’ concept of information overload. I remember a study that was done that proves that all the scrolling bars across the screens of CNN and other news channels raises people’s anxiety. The more information that’s being thrown at us, the more intimidating life becomes.