Who is Smarter?

As I was reading today a question, quite possibly a future debate, sparked in my mind. I think I may post it on WebCT too just because it could be an interesting debate. So here it is...

With all this discussion of R-directed vs. L-directed thinking Pink has concluded that both sides of the brain are crucial for everyday life, however, while they are both important does that level the playing field as far as careers are concerned? If they are both valuable does that mean astrophysicists and designers are equal? What about architects and accountants? Does one out weigh the other? The people in the world deemed the smartest in the world are oftentimes mathematicians or scientists - where do R-thinkers fit into this genius catagory?

I did a google search and came across several websites linking high intelligence to the 'smartest person in the world.' These were specialized websites, however, when I looked at more publicly viewed websites I found one with a poll. This suggested people like Noam Chomsky, Shakespeare, Leonardo Divinci, and even Martha Stuart as the smartest people in the world! I thought it was interesting that the public is catching on but those who actually test and publish results consider IQ only. If the way we think is changing, shouldn't these changes be reflected in our considerations for who the smartest individuals in the world are? I think these tests should not only include math/science problem solving skills, but they should have some sort os asthetic component, possibly a component that measures social skills. ( I don't even know if this is possible but I'm just throwing it out there).

Now, even as I'm writing this I am redefining my own definition of "smart." In school the smartest of my friends were those who did the best on tests and had the highest GPA and could get an A in a chem. test. That is changing for me. I think smart is so many different things. Smart is contributing to the world, thriving in it, maintaining relationships, living a fulfilled life... people who are the happiest are the smartest to me now. Life involves so many different skills, knowing how to solve the most complex math equasion in the world won't help you when you have children, while you could be the Divinci of our generation, you still need to use your L-directed thinking to balance your checkbook. Many people would say that the person who is going to go on to do the best in college and get a great job in the future would be someone like the valedictorian. They have the highest grades right, that should get them far enough? But what if they have no social skills? It all balances and I think smart shouldn't be considered just IQ anymore by anyone. I think there are also problems relating to this with the testing in our public school systems, but thats another issue for another day.

A Whole New Mind- 1st Response

During the first 3 chapters of his book, Pink gave us a brief introduction to the brain and to our society. First, he explored the basic facts of how the different hemispheres of our brain work and interract with our body. He established simple facts such as, the right hemisphere controls the left side of the body and the left hemisphere controls the right side of the body. Then he introduced us to the really interesting stuff. By giving us a background of information about how the different hemispheres of the brain were view many years ago, he then leads up to the newest idea and his own theory. The right and left hemispheres each have their own way of processessing information, and both hemispheres are important in all tasks we preform. I enjoyed how he did not denounce the left brain, but rather defended the right and maintained that we need BOTH sides of our brain. The title of the book is a little deceiving.

I always knew that the right and left hemispheres were different. They teach you that in every psychology class and in most of the my speech classes. However, in our speech classes we have a strong emphasis on the left hemisphere because it houses the language centers crucial for the actual production of speech (Wernicke and Broca's Areas). We get so caught up in the actual, sequential process of how speech is produced that we sometimes overlook how important our prior knowledge and emotions are when it comes to what we actually end up saying.
Pink states that the left hemisphere is sequential while the right hemisphere is simultaneous (p. 18). Therefore, the left hemisphere is used for things like reading, writing, and talking while the right hemisphere is used for things like interpreting facial expressions and reckognizing context and shaping how we say things. "The left hemisphere handles what is said; the right hemisphere focuses on how it's said-the nonverbal emotional cues delivered through gaze, facial expression, and intonation." So, without proper function of our right brain, we would be able to preform the task of speaking, however, there would be no augmentative elements to that speech. No intontation, no changing rates (prosody), no facial expressions or emotional reactions. The world would be very different without the right brain. But, without the left brain we wouldn't be able to talk at all. Both sides are crucial for adequate communication.

I can't help but draw a parallel here between this book and my speech classes again. I just find it fascinating. There is a great deal of emphasis on the left brain, however, during my fluency class (addresses theories for cause and possible therapy implementations for stuttering) we talked a great deal about the right brain. Many theories actually state that children stutter because of an over-activation of the right side of the brain and under-activation fo the left side of the brain. Therefore, when a child talks they experience delays in their speech (left side) and because of those delays their emotions heighten and interfere with further production until normal disfluencies in a child's speech develop over time into a disorder of stuttering. I think this is a perfect example of right and left brain function. Speech is considered to be housed in the left side of the brain and stuttering is considered a disorder of speech, however, this disorder is actually theorized to be caused by right brain activity. A disorder of the left side is caused by the emotions of the right side. Of course, no one knows the definite cause of stuttering and these are just theories, but how cool is that! Sorry if I have rambled, I'm sure not everyone is interested in speech disorders, but that theory is much more valid to me now.
Anyway, back to Pink. This is definately my favorite book so far. It applies to everyone and this complex topic is written in such simple terms. I also like the links he makes to society: Abundance, Asia, and Automation. "...the very triumph of L-Directed Thinking has lessened its significance (p. 33)." I absolutely love this ironic observation. The world is changing so fast and we need to change with it. We need to be more creative so we stand out in a crowd where everyone is the same and we need to use our right brain to do it. Our old sequential, book-learned skills are not enough to keep our jobs from traveling across seas to India and China. Computers will never be enough.

I was left with a lot of questions after reading Smart Mobs and throughout this course. We talk alot about dehumanizing and ask questions like, will computers take over? I think Pink is starting to answer those questions for me. I never really took into account, when asking these questions, the fact that we would continue to evolve. I also couldn't see where we could evolve to. However, we are taking what sets us apart from computers and technology, our right brain, and developing it, incorporating it into how we do business and how we communicate. Technology is continuing to evolve to the left while we are evolving to the right.

An Interesting Current Event

As I was reading through the first three chapters of Pink's book, I saw a current event one night on the news a couple of weeks ago, and before I started reading I thought was a little strange. After I started reading, I found it to be a direct confirmation of Pink's ideas about where our lives are headed.

On the news a lawyer was taking drastic measures to put two parents accused of murdering their son in jail. She was using new strategies to get the jury's attention. She had a cake and sang happy birthday on the day of what would have been the young child's birthday in the courtroom. She also re-enacted what happened to the day the child was murdered using a child sized dummy and several props. She acted out the crimes the parents committed with great passion. I am not sure what landed this case on the nightly news, the actual thought of two parents murdering their son or the unorthodox way in which the lawyer was presenting her case. She took what is considered a left brain occupation and transformed it into a highly emotional, right-brain driven show.

I thought of this immediatly as I was reading through Pink's discussion of MBAs and MFAs. "...whats left for the letigious? High-concept work like that done by Animators at Law, a graphic design firm staffed by law graduates that prepares exhibits, videos, visual aids to help top trail attorneys persuade juries (p. 55)." It was really re-enforcing to find a connection to a current event. It drove home Pink's ideas that I find to be refreshing and reassuring (I would consider myself one of the right-brainers). I wonder if this lawyer is just a very creative individual who felt like taking her tactics to a new level or if she has read literature such as Pink's and taken the advice to heart.

No matter how she came up with her court-room strategy, she was right on target. She won her case, sending both parents to jail, getting justice for the young boy. I don't think that very many people really understand the change that is taking hold of our society. I admit that I hadn't really given it any thought until now. More than likely this is why the case recieved so much attention. They thought the lawyer's behavior was strange... she was controversial. Little does the general public know that we are going to be seeing more and more of these types of scenerios. It made her unique which is what more and more people will have to find a way of doing to make themselves valuable in their line of work.

Short Video Proposal

I have been thinking about this all of break, and I have yet to come up with a good idea! I have a million ideas for my next NeoVox, but a video, I don't have a clue. I'm just going to throw something out there. I'm not sure if it's good or bad (probably bad) but hey, it's something.

What if your did some kind of video interviewing other students about what their view of the future would be. There are so many debates, one I just commented on, about whether we will become dehumanized and where all of this technology is going. Since we are the generation that will see a great deal of these new technological advances and some of our classmates may even play a role in creating them, why don't we find out what they see. We are the future, right?

Finishing Snow Crash

Wow, I finally finished Snow Crash! I have to say that the end seems to be a completely different book from the beginning, a different writer. I thought the end was just very well done. He finally brought a sense of controlled chaos to the book. One that the reader could follow, understand and identify with. Towards the first half of the novel he was trying to hard to be inventive. He put too much effort into creating this world and not enough into expressing who the characters are and developing the action that takes place. Although, the more I think about this book and the great attention that Stephenson pays to detail, the more that I think that what we perceive as a weakness in writing was, actually, a strategy he used to represent the bigger picture he was bringing to our attention... the theme of the novel.

As we have discussed before, the constant description of the reality that Hiro lives in is distracting. He pays more attention to the setting rather than the characters. I think I recall one discussion where we hypothesized that he does this on purpose to give us this sense of chaos that the characters are feeling and experiencing. He puts is in the mindset that Hiro and Y.T. are in so we can understand the characters better. Maybe in their world (our future) they are neglected. Money, franchulates, propoganda take precedence of people. However, as the story unfolds until we reach the end, he allows the characters to unfold greatly. They take control of the their environment and we learn who they are as they engage themselves and take charge. I think we didn't know who they were because they didn't know who they were. Like us, they were lost in their reality, overwhelmed. Maybe Stephenson is using this as a warning. We must take control. We must conquer our surroundings as technology progresses and challenges our conventional ideas of government, social roles, right, wrong and even reality itself. Once again, he's making important statements about society and who we may become if we continue on this path. His novel is disguised in the characters and actions on the surface using aquired language, but like the deep structure or "linguistic infrastructure" Hiro describes, he makes much more profound statements that we may not even realize are there. Maybe I'm taking this all too far, but I just a have a feeling that he wasn't just writing a virtual reality novel for entertainment purposes only.

I really enjoyed the way he developed the characters such as Raven towards the end. He gave them a certain depth, such as the fact that Raven loved Y.T., that made you identify with them, make the story more believable. He brings them to life and he goes to extremes with this so the characters will be able to take charge over the environment. I also like the idea that these characters that are supposed to be the "bad guys" are softened, like Raven and the Mafia. It brings an unexpected edge to the story. I really enjoyed this last part of the novel, much more than the first.

Finally, I LOVED the way he tied up the lose ends connecting the mythology presented earlier in the story to present day and the spread of Snow Crash. He was bringing so many different elements into it in the beginning of the novel that I was very confused. I really couldn't put it all together by myself, but once Hiro explained it in the Metaverse starting in Chapter 56 it all made sense. I was in awe. It made perfect sense and was fascinating. Rife was right by trying to take over the world by using language. Communication is such a critical part of our lives and is becoming more easily accessible to everyday. We are in constant contact with eachother as we disucussed in Smart Mobs by Rheingold. By taking away your higher thinking abilities through a virus similar to what we see in our communication devices that we use to keep us constantly in contact everyday-all day, was very creative on Stephenson's part. To draw on the past and connect it to the future in such a realistic way was great.

Overall, it was a very good book. I give Stephenson a great deal of credit.

Working on my NeoVox

It has been over a year since I have taken a course where I have to do any writing, I've learned that it is not something that you can just jump back into. This is a process. Sometimes, a long, slow, and painful process. Once I submit something, I decide there was something I should have changed. It never ends. That's why I am loving Wiki! I really like the fact that it is always changing with our minds. Nothing is final and that's nice sometimes.

Anyway, back to the topic of this blog, I've been trying my best to hammer this NeoVox out. Going over the requirements again and again, trying to imagine my audience and use a voice that would speak to everyone who might read this online magazine. This is so much harder than writing for a professor! (I get where you're going with this Prof. Reid) So, just as I turned in my article for others to do a peer review, I got another idea that would either add greatly to my NeoVox or change it all together.

My mom actually steered me towards this idea one night on the phone. She is a school teacher, and she sees the impact that MySpace is having on her high-schoolers. She is very worried about what kids are putting on their MySpace's, what they are doing, and what they are being exposed to. She even gets on my case for having one at all. They have been holding parent meetings at the school to educate parents on MySpace and why kids shouldn't have. I believe one of the topics was something like "Online Bullying." The school has also punished students who posted pictures of themselves drinking on MySpace, expelling them from school and keeping them from participating in activities, such as sports teams. Is MySpace really that much of a danger?

While any place that we put our information online is dangerous, I think many parents are taking this to the extreme. If you know the correct way to operate your profile on MySpace, you are in little danger. It is something that parents know little about because it is geared towards our younger, net savvy generation, and therefore, they are wary of it. Without giving it a change they watch the meladramatic broadcasts on tv about how MySpace has ruined people's lives and assume that the same exact thing is going to happen to their children.

I think that I am going to incorporate an article I found that is on the internet and that I also saw on tv called, "Why parents should mind MySpace." It interviewed a mother who had found her 13-year old daughter's MySpace and was appauled. It exaggerated the dangers of MySpace while telling parents that they need to get involved. After seeing this any parent would demand their child get rid of their MySpace or let them see it and would make any kid roll their eyes.

"When “Dateline” surfed MySpace, we found scenes of binge drinking, apparent drug use, teens posing in underwear, and other members simulating sex, and in some cases even having it."

This is just one quote taken from the article. With material like this floating around, no wonder parents are over-reacting. MySpace can be dangerous, however, if you take the right precautions, it is "a place for friends." There are privacy settings that allow only your friends to view your profile. You do not have to provide any personal information such as you address or phone number, these devulged by choice and individuals should be encouraged to make the right choice. Also, if you are a college student who will be looking to apply for jobs in the future, it would be a good idea to limit what is on your profile and to limit who can view your profile so prospective employers won't make judgments about you based on your MySpace content. Also, everyone should know that need to show caution when choosing who to approve as your friend. Don't allow someone you don't or who may have offensive material, and most importantly, as with any online service, never meet with anyone you have met online face to face.

I think this could add to my NeoVox, although, I'm not sure how interesting college students would find parent's problems with MySpace. Maybe I should just add information to students about how Myspace could affect their ability to get jobs in the future. Maybe I will leave it as it is. I just don't know!