One of the most useful tools and extraordinary complex of simplest solutions that allows an individual to access any material of desire. My friend asked me one time; do you know what holds an answer to every question? I said no. He said ask the Internet. This type of formality and individual characteristics for which we hold the Internet to such high regard has got me worried. Dreyfus believes that the Internet dehumanizes an individual that allows them to say certain things that they would not say in real life. But isn’t this better because it exposes me to a side of the individual I would have never known existed? Maybe. I take myself for example writing this post. Most of the words I use I probably would never use talking to someone, just because of the seriousness and tone for writing the post. Does this make me different than who I actually am? I would have to say no. My immediate situation relative to way in which I lose my context, relevance, significance, and risk is increased to believe I can do and say what I want through the Internet. However, the Internet seems to be a double-edged sword in which I can exhibit my thoughts but also be bombarded by information overload, in which my opinion is constantly changing by views and opinions of other minds exhibiting their thoughts through this mass communication. I would have to say the Internet is a good thing because minds can collide and exhibit their thoughts to each other and build upon it.
4.30.07
Jennifer Crabill | 20-Apr-07 at 12:27 am | Permalink
An important issue that I think Dreyfus is building up to and what is mentioned in this post is the idea that a person can act differently online than they normally would in real life. This shouldn’t, however, necessarily be labeled as a bad thing. When I first starting thinking about Internet communication I was completely anti-Internet. I thought it acted as a scapegoat for those who were too weak or lazy to meet/converse/communicate with people in real life. After I had spoken with someone whose personal life had benefited from the use of the Internet to talk to other people (through Second Life and through AIM), I was more sympathetic to online chatters. This person was naturally shy, didn’t like to socialize at a bar scene, and had a difficult opening up to people face-to-face. He told me that the Internet provided a means of communication for him that otherwise wouldn’t have existed. Very intriguing! While I still support Dreyfus’ idea of disembodiment, I suppose for those who think they are disembodied in the real life, maybe online communication is a good thing for them.
Brandon Wilkins | 22-Apr-07 at 4:38 pm | Permalink
I believe that the internet acts as a mask, figuratively. By this I mean, I would be more likely to cause conflict or express my views on a situation because I understand that the internet provides me with a security blanket. But I dont think that the internet should necessarily do this for all people. I know some people who express their views as liberally in person as they do through emails.
Also, a criticism I have concerns the statement that the internet has the answer to every question. It would seem that its enormous size should lead to all the answers, but then how come people are still doing research? Maybe that is to critical of a question, so let me say that the internet has all the answers to practical questions. I could agree that this is the case, but I feel that knowledge is still based on the user. This is so, because there may be someone out there who is more capable of searching for information online than me, and therefore would be considered smarter.
Kimberly Koch | 23-Apr-07 at 8:12 pm | Permalink
When you say that your opinion is constantly changed by information overload through this new form of mass communication, wouldn’t you be proving that Dreyfus was right when he said that the public will acquire knowledge, but will never act on it because they keep acquiring more information and changing their opinions? Do you agree that when everyone can make an opinion, no opinions matter?
Angela Kinsella | 23-Apr-07 at 10:31 pm | Permalink
Before I read the comments on this post, I was going to say just almost exactly what Jennifer commented on. I do believe that the internet has the capability to disembody someone if taken to the extreme. People who spend all of their time glued to the computer screen will definitely have more social problems than those who interact with people everyday. People who have the natural shyness can benefit from the internet (even though they should just get over their fear/inability to socialize) That is why websites like eHarmony and Match have thrive so well for the people that just cannot meet someone they are interested in on their own. The internet is not an evil thing, but it has the possibility if it is abused too much.
William Barrett | 24-Apr-07 at 9:21 pm | Permalink
I agree that the internet is a useful tool for people to use as a way of talking to people or meeting people when they are not able to do so in person. Maybe someone is shy and the internet provides them the opportunity to open up and get to know other people. However, I think the problem with this is that there is a certain feeling you get around the presence of some one else that you can only obtain through embodiment and physical interactions with that person. I do not think the full meaning or strength of a relationship can be known without an embodied interaction with that person. I can understand though that if people use the internet as a “crutch” like in Clark’s view, then they will be able to keep in touch and keep their relationship stable until they are able to have those embodied interactions. I do not think that the internet should be the only means of connection or communication between people because it is not completely real to me.
Annie Werly | 25-Apr-07 at 11:48 am | Permalink
I think the internet is a great tool for gaining information and even keeping in contact with friends. However I do agree with Dreyfus in a way- often times I find my friends are “glued” to their computers due to the internet. They spend frivilous hours upon hours looking at facebook or talking on AIM or whatever it is they do when all the while they could have read a good book. Don’t get me wrong, I certainly use the internet, and arguably too much, but when people get so attached to it that they would rather talk on AIM or text message than in person or on the phone- that becomes a problem. I hope that the future generations learn that this is NOT the best way to communicate and build up social, inter-personal relationships.
Krystal Kniep | 25-Apr-07 at 9:24 pm | Permalink
I agree with you Annie about facebook and AIM taking over people’s lives. I think people need to know their limits, and know if they log into facebook every 30 minutes, that is a huge problem. This can become a huge distraction from school and take away from other important aspects on the internet. Also, I agree that the internet should not be the primary way to built personal relationships. I think the only way for a true relationship to grow is to be embodied in the direct presence of the another person.
Erin Murphy | 25-Apr-07 at 10:12 pm | Permalink
The thing about facebook and AIM and such is really you have to have some real world experience already before going in.
For both, if you haven’t met anyone face-to-face through classes or social gatherings or what have you, your contact list will be very, very minuscule. I find that the people who I contact the most on facebook are the people that I have been spending time with in real life.
Then, there’s the fact that you have to list other interests and favorite books and movies on your profile. You’ve got to have a real life before you get an online one.
Amanda Jakstas | 26-Apr-07 at 11:11 am | Permalink
I strongly agree that Facebook, AIM, and other programs of the like are detrimental to us as students. I look back to freshman year before facebook. I had AIM and thought that it was so distracting from my school work. It’s something else to do instead of sitting down to read for class. Then facebook came around and I refused to join for the longest time. Now, it’s a HUGE distraction. I have friends that are on it constantly. It is so sad that some people use facebook to initiate relationships. If we become interested in someone, we can go check their profile on facebook. Where is the risk in that? Take the risk and go talk to the person. I believe that relationships should be initiated, built, etc. in person.
Tariq Mohammed | 26-Apr-07 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
As I have said earlier, the internet is only a bad thing if you don’t know how to use it. The general consensus most people have is the take over of people’s lives due to Facebook and AIM.
I agree that this is true for most people, but has no effect on me. Yeah, I have both Facebook and AIM accounts, but I utilize them in such a way that I don’t become addicted to them. I don’t randomly add friends that I never talk to only to make my list bigger. It depends on how you have your priorities set. Putting socializing ahead of homework and studying will only lead to trouble.
Adam Domanico | 26-Apr-07 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
The one thing that I wanted to comment on about this post is about the usefullness of being disembodied by the internet. Yes, as you said people seem to say things that they otherwise would not over the internet because there are no direct personal consequences. However, this does not neccessarily let us know more about a person. While in public people conform to the standards that society has deemed acceptible, such as clothing, language, etc… It is proper out of respect for your fellow people to conform to these standards. However, if someone decided to swear all through a formal speech to board members of a company, it does not necessarily say anything about who you are other than your lack of respect. People adapt to different environments all the time and this does not truely let people know who you are. Therefore, the only way to truely know who someone is is to have personal experiences with that person and see how they act and not necessarily what they say. Even the sweetest person can get mad and start swearing at someone but that does not mean that they are profane at heart. Thus the internet does not allow us to know much about people because it just makes it that much easier for that nice person to get mad.
John Rooney | 26-Apr-07 at 8:13 pm | Permalink
I think that often we talk about the internet as a “thing,” or some sort of mother computer. Often times we forget that the internet is not a machine, in fact it isn’t anything at all. The Internet is merely a connection of people. It is our ideas that a being shared via the internet so I don’t see how this is dangerous in anyway that just sharing your ideas by talking is dangerous.
Chris Paolinetti | 26-Apr-07 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
The internet is overall, a positive aspect of the computer revolution, because of the vast quantity of information that was suddenly brought to our fingertips. Human knowledge doubles every ten years, and as it got bigger and bigger, a more effective medium than books and television became necessary to effectively distribute it. Eventually, something may replace the internet as we know it, because the internet may become as slow and cumbersome as print and television.