Postman Ch. 11

The distinction that postman made at the end of chapter 11 was between laughing and thinking. He makes the distincion to show the cause for our transition from the age of typography and the age of television. Postman discusses that people were to amused to things in life that cause them to laugh and have fun and as a result caused them to stop thinking.This distinction shows how we are declining in our age of typography. We have become to consumed with the new technology of our era that we are not thinking of how to benefit our country but to make it more fun. Thus equaling our age of television and technology. Soon we will be completely overwhelmed and as a result we will lose our ability to think.

Friday's experience

Communicating by only drawing illustrations on dry erase boards or acting my ideas through charades was a great learning tool that was very eye opening for me. It showed me how much we depend on our communication even for the small things we need to say or ask others. On friday I knew it was going to be a rough day right when I walked through the doors and picked up my dry erase board. The moaning and groaning of everybody picking it up was also another sign it was going to be a long day. The first rough example of communication that I experienced was figuring out if we had memory that day. I saw people studying their bibles but I thought that since we had the two snow-day's that we didn't have Memory work for Christian Faith. I tried to draw it out to my friends but they couldn't understand the illustration that I was drawing. As a result I gave up and didn't get the information I needed to know if we had memory. It turns out we did have memory and I didn't do so well on it. The form of communication was hard to do in between classes. I didn't have time to draw things out in the hall-way so I couldn't ask people important questions like: Is our spanish quiz hard today, do we have a history quiz or did it get postponed, or do we have homework do in this or that class. Simple questions that I would have no problem asking by speaking but very difficult by drawing or using charades. The day was fairly difficult just by making our means of communication more time consuming and forcing the people to take our drawing and make an assumption of what we hope that they will guess correctly what we were trying to draw or charade. The day was long and somewhat boring but a great learning experience.
One interesting experience that I had during the day that I could relate to the book was when I was trying to ask Mrs. Haupt if we had a History quiz today or was it moved to monday. I had to do this in between classes so I was on a short time span to illustrate or charade what I had to say to her. As I was drawing I thought that I was capturing the message somewhat clearly or understandable, however, as I looked up all I saw was this blank look on her face. Luckily she knew the circumstances we were under and had a list of things to say that we could have asked and the topic of the quiz came up and I was relieved to find out that we were taking it monday. This relates to the book because on pg.22 Postman discusses how everyones form of expression differs. This means that what someone knows to be truth may not be true for someone else. This relates to my situation because the illustration I drew I thought was accurate, but Mrs. Haupt had a different view on what I was drawing therefore she had no clue as to what I was drawing.

NEIL POSTMAN

While listening to the interview that Neil Postman gave to Calvin College, I was able to relate things that he was discussing in the interview that he was sharing in chapter one of his book "Amusing Ourselves To Death".  The first example that I was able to relate to the book was how Neil was discussing how much people were believing that cloning was going to be a big part of our 21st century. As he was discussing this topic he put emphasis on how people made people believe that it was going to be a big deal. People were cloning sheep or frogs. This lead to people believing that we were going to be able to clone humans and use their clone's human parts as reliable organs if one was going to need an extra. I could relate this towards the book because in chapter one neil shows how people were making the "news of the day" a big deal. People were making others believe that a certain subject was of importance by advertising and making a scene over it to make it a medium. People made the news of the day of importance by so many people believing that it was important just like the people believing that cloning was so important. The second example from the interview that I was able to relate towards the book was how the author the book "Being Digital" said how as a society we are able to adapt to our technological future. Through out the whole chapter the book explains how we are transitioning from our age of typography to our age of television. Specifically on page 13 near the end and top of page 14, Neil discuses how we are making a vast and trembling shift from writing to use of electronics. That our old ways of life may not serve us as well during the present, thus we must change our nature to find new ways that will best serve us. As a result, Neil relates his interview with the book by being congruent with his message that we are able to adapt to new ways of life that will serve our society in a positive way.

Sticks&Stones break Bones, but Can Words Really Hurt You?

The intent of the first six words of her column is to say that politeness in public communication is important. This is something we should practice as long as it doesn't effect a debate, passion, or metaphors.
Chavez decides to use the word bellicose to describe the way our politics run. They are based on eager to fight or aggressive/hostile metaphors such as, " took his best shot". Chavez explains that we don't literally aim a gun at his opponents, but simply is a rhetorical device that we use to get our point across.
Chaves persuades the reader into believing that tampering words distorts the intent and interferes with the understanding of the message. Chavez discusses how restrictions were placed to avoid potentially offending people in the L.A times in words as: indian, hispanic, or ghetto. The case of Huckleberry Fin is the best example as it shows how changing the word from negro to slave effects one from learning the books message on racism and social mores of earlier eras.
I would say that I do agree with Chavez. We shouldn't have to change our way of speaking to conform to civility in public discourse. We should simply be thoughtful of what we are about to say before we speak it.