EQ: Who is the real victim of digital representational devices?
Thesis: Many of us attempt to blame the digital representational devices have directed us to the trail of stupidity while the digital representational devices are the real victim that got censured.
Intro: In this generation, digitalization has played a big role in our lives. Not only teenagers, even adults and some seniors have been using these digital representational devices obsessively to keep up with society’s pace. We did not just abusing these efficient devices that can make our life more convenient, we became to use them conventionally for everyday life. Most of us immerge ourselves into these addicting devices, and came to the conclusion that these dead objects are the murderer of intelligence. No doubt that we rely on these devices the most now a day, but what we don’t realize was that we are the one who can actually decide whether to use it or not. Moreover, these attitudes could form us into varies of ways such as disvaluing the precious things, blame others for our own fault, and avoid the truth behind reality.
Argument 1: While inviting or avoiding the digital representational devices into our daily life, we only concern about the objects, not ourselves.
- Feed (The author wrote the book as an allegory using feed to represent the digital representational devices to enhance the idea that it is bad and it makes us into ignorant. He never address that it is the way we used these devices, he blame the one that has no say instead of ourselves who choose to use them. Feed make us stupid? Or we are stupid for using it abusively.)
- Everything Bad Is Good For Us (The author tries to break through what the dominant culture says about the digital representational devices, and he claimed that they are actually good for us. Although he did not blame the devices that we used, he only directing his argument towards the devices not ourselves. This reveals that we never think self critically, but what it affects us.
- Informal Research (Google is making us stupid? Or really the way we used Google? Perhaps massive of sources could shape us to skim read a lot, but we could have read it as a book. What is important is the material and the text itself, we should not judge the format. Instead, the article complains how Google caused us form a bad habit of reading. Additionally, we are able to think deeply while reading because of the distractions. I think we all have self control, why blame the computer? It really depends on how we form our habits.)
Argument 2: The digital representational devices are just objects that caused no harm, what it really matters are the way we use it.
- Feed (The teenagers rely on the feed to do everything for them, and therefore they do not think. It is not the feed’s fault that caused them to be stupid. It is just that they do not know how to make use of it. All of advertisements are getting on their way, and they do not know how to avoid it. All they know is to buy this and buy that while they could have formed certain momentum to learn and be curious about the world. If they force themselves to think like Violet, they would not be like ignorant. Violet is a good example of self critical, she did not blame the feed but actually thought about her own actions towards feed. She questioned about herself and thinks behind the surface to be aware of where she is.)
- Interview (There is a pass by around 30s claimed that he is not against it, and he doesn’t think it is the way of avoiding reality. What it actually matters are the way people used it. He said, “people do not know how to use it and they just filled it with crap”. This example shows that the devices are really the real victim who got blamed by us.)
- Bad Religion 21st Century Digital Boy (lines like “I don’t know how to read but I got a lot of toys”, this sentence could be interpret as how people blamed the devices but not themselves. Is it really the DRD’s fault that caused people don’t know how to read? Also lines “and I don’t want it, the things you’re offering me, symbolized bar code, quick ID”, do we have to take what the ads offer? Aren’t we are the one who is there to decide? If every individual who consumes to DRD trying to fit into the society’s mainstream, we could also have reverse to the other way around due to the fact that majority wins.)
Argument 3: We all make excuses for our own fault and we refused to admit to the fact that our intelligence is killed by our own hands.
- Every Bad Is Good For Us (The author tries to enhance the idea how all the DRD are good for us, and thus it is not our fault for using it. Such as the Internet and the video games, he claimed that it actually help our minds to get smarter. By giving credits to the DRD, we just have created an excuse for ourselves to use it obsessively, and later on blamed the devices because they are the main cause. We use it because it makes us smart, but if it doesn’t, it is totally the DRD’s fault.)
- Informal research (We claimed that Google make us stupid as an excuse for being stupid, while it might have to do with the self control that we have. We could not control ourselves to interact with the DRD, and called it the distractions. But in fact, if we control ourselves better, we can fully read the text online also, just like the books. It is the way we form the habits, not the computer. The DRD barely can touch us or change us in anyway, unless we open it up and allows it to do so. Overall, we still obtain the say. )
- Own Life experience. (Video Project, Experiment …etc. How I used to blame the DRD for not getting work done earlier, and there are so much distractions.)
Thesis: Many of us attempt to blame the digital representational devices have directed us to the trail of stupidity while the digital representational devices are the real victim that got censured.
Intro: In this generation, digitalization has played a big role in our lives. Not only teenagers, even adults and some seniors have been using these digital representational devices obsessively to keep up with society’s pace. We did not just abusing these efficient devices that can make our life more convenient, we became to use them conventionally for everyday life. Most of us immerge ourselves into these addicting devices, and came to the conclusion that these dead objects are the murderer of intelligence. No doubt that we rely on these devices the most now a day, but what we don’t realize was that we are the one who can actually decide whether to use it or not. Moreover, these attitudes could form us into varies of ways such as disvaluing the precious things, blame others for our own fault, and avoid the truth behind reality.
Argument 1: While inviting or avoiding the digital representational devices into our daily life, we only concern about the objects, not ourselves.
- Feed (The author wrote the book as an allegory using feed to represent the digital representational devices to enhance the idea that it is bad and it makes us into ignorant. He never address that it is the way we used these devices, he blame the one that has no say instead of ourselves who choose to use them. Feed make us stupid? Or we are stupid for using it abusively.)
- Everything Bad Is Good For Us (The author tries to break through what the dominant culture says about the digital representational devices, and he claimed that they are actually good for us. Although he did not blame the devices that we used, he only directing his argument towards the devices not ourselves. This reveals that we never think self critically, but what it affects us.
- Informal Research (Google is making us stupid? Or really the way we used Google? Perhaps massive of sources could shape us to skim read a lot, but we could have read it as a book. What is important is the material and the text itself, we should not judge the format. Instead, the article complains how Google caused us form a bad habit of reading. Additionally, we are able to think deeply while reading because of the distractions. I think we all have self control, why blame the computer? It really depends on how we form our habits.)
Argument 2: The digital representational devices are just objects that caused no harm, what it really matters are the way we use it.
- Feed (The teenagers rely on the feed to do everything for them, and therefore they do not think. It is not the feed’s fault that caused them to be stupid. It is just that they do not know how to make use of it. All of advertisements are getting on their way, and they do not know how to avoid it. All they know is to buy this and buy that while they could have formed certain momentum to learn and be curious about the world. If they force themselves to think like Violet, they would not be like ignorant. Violet is a good example of self critical, she did not blame the feed but actually thought about her own actions towards feed. She questioned about herself and thinks behind the surface to be aware of where she is.)
- Interview (There is a pass by around 30s claimed that he is not against it, and he doesn’t think it is the way of avoiding reality. What it actually matters are the way people used it. He said, “people do not know how to use it and they just filled it with crap”. This example shows that the devices are really the real victim who got blamed by us.)
- Bad Religion 21st Century Digital Boy (lines like “I don’t know how to read but I got a lot of toys”, this sentence could be interpret as how people blamed the devices but not themselves. Is it really the DRD’s fault that caused people don’t know how to read? Also lines “and I don’t want it, the things you’re offering me, symbolized bar code, quick ID”, do we have to take what the ads offer? Aren’t we are the one who is there to decide? If every individual who consumes to DRD trying to fit into the society’s mainstream, we could also have reverse to the other way around due to the fact that majority wins.)
Argument 3: We all make excuses for our own fault and we refused to admit to the fact that our intelligence is killed by our own hands.
- Every Bad Is Good For Us (The author tries to enhance the idea how all the DRD are good for us, and thus it is not our fault for using it. Such as the Internet and the video games, he claimed that it actually help our minds to get smarter. By giving credits to the DRD, we just have created an excuse for ourselves to use it obsessively, and later on blamed the devices because they are the main cause. We use it because it makes us smart, but if it doesn’t, it is totally the DRD’s fault.)
- Informal research (We claimed that Google make us stupid as an excuse for being stupid, while it might have to do with the self control that we have. We could not control ourselves to interact with the DRD, and called it the distractions. But in fact, if we control ourselves better, we can fully read the text online also, just like the books. It is the way we form the habits, not the computer. The DRD barely can touch us or change us in anyway, unless we open it up and allows it to do so. Overall, we still obtain the say. )
- Own Life experience. (Video Project, Experiment …etc. How I used to blame the DRD for not getting work done earlier, and there are so much distractions.)
Significance (Connections): Avoid Reality, Disvalue things, Attitude for balming
Alternative Point of View: It is not our fault, just a transformation to more advance and better society. We have to keep it up with the pace, and we should improve and create new things to replace the old. We cannot just stop improving from doing "science research", and we should always look for the better. Therefore, if anything went wrong, it is the DRD's fault. We need to try new things in order to make it happen.
Conclusion: How can these dead objects can actually affect us in anyway when they are actually make by our own hands?
Nice job on working on the outline, you have your sources and seems like your ready to write your first draft whenever. But I have seen some minor grammar errors throughout your outline, much lie in your intro paragraph, 3rd sentence. And also your 2nd argument seems weaker than your other arguments. I don't get how using the object will help your thesis about blaming an object but I understand it is an outline and hope again that your first draft you will be able to explain more. Your conclusion is a really good question to think about and you have also involved other criteria's from the original exhibition.
ReplyDelete