Attention Literacy

Brett Stinson

Professor Werry

RWS 100

November 18, 2014

Attention Literacy

In the article “Attention Literacy” by Howard Rheingold he presents an argument on the changing internet and how is has emerged as a large force on how society interacts. Although he presents this argument on the internet, he takes neither side and states that it has both positives and negatives and we must take advantage of it as it can turn to be very useful. One of his most important points, which is also included in the title, is the nature of Attention as it has been deteriorated by the newer and faster Internet that is always changing to make itself that much better. Although he discusses how the internet has had a negative impact, it isn’t the most important as attention is something that can be improved and doesn’t always stay the same. So if we are able to control our attention and overcome distractions then it isn’t a major factor. Overall, Rheingold views the internet as a positive and that the negatives are all self controlled and each individual has the power to make the internet a positive.

Carr Final Paper

Brett Stinson 
RWS 100 
Professor Werry

Is Google Making Us Stupid

The past century has provided society with a massive technological landslide in the form of cell phones, radios and what many describe as the leading advancement of our civilization, the Internet. After the initial public release of the Internet, everyday citizens have been provided access to the largest library in the world known as the World Wide Web. Although the Internet started out as a source that rarely provided success with slow and glitchy servers, and very few had a viable source of access, it awed the public audience as it was something that no one could have ever imagined coming into existence. Today the Internet is bustling with unbelievably high speeds and more websites than you could visit in a lifetime.  Sites range from how to bake a cake to how to solve quantum mechanics.  The possibilities of the Internet are endless. Although the internet has created a gold brick road leading to endless answers, it has stirred up great controversy. In 2008 the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” was written by Nicholas Carr, he discusses the worldwide debate on whether the internet is doing more good for the public or is it dimming us down. Carrs main argument is that the internet has created a negative effect on the human brain as it has caused it to be always wanting more information more rapidly and it causes the mind to always become distracted and thinking about other things. He states how as a writer where most of his information that he writes about comes from sources that he reads, using the internet has both had a positive and negative effects but he believes that the negatives far outweigh the positives. In this paper I will explore the rhetorical strategies implemented in Carr's argument and discuss whether he has created a persuasive argument.
One of the most efficient tools implemented by Carr is the usage of Analogies, the main one being the references often made to the film 2001: A Space Odyssey mainly during the scene where David Bowman is disassembling the artificial intelligence known as HAL. He uses this scene as a comparison to how the internet is "tinkering with [his] brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory"(Carr 1). In this analogy, Carr is describing how he is similarly suffering the same cognitive effects as he attempts to immerse himself in longer texts but cannot succeed. This comparison provides a good base for his argument, especially for those who have viewed the film, as it provides pathos as some find themselves in the same predicament that HAL and Carr are in. He uses this strategy in a persuasive manner as he wants his audience to gain a visualization of what the internet is physically doing to our brains and imagining our own brain as some super computer did this precisely. The specific comparison not only provided a stable emotional connection between the reader and the subject Carr is addressing, but it also provided a connection between the movie as a whole. It provides a larger connection as HAL in the film is controlling the passengers on the spacecraft the same way that the internet is controlling and manipulating the users. For those that have seen the film this connection is much stronger but for those who haven’t it is still able to imprint the idea of the internet picking apart at your brain so you will remember. By utilizing the techniques of Analogies that many can compare to allows the reader to immerse themselves in a deeper level of the argument as it provides them with a sense of pathos.
One of the strongest tools used by Carr that gives his argument a chance against those who oppose is the use of prolepsis. Prolepsis is a very strong tool when writing a persuasive piece as it takes the counterarguments and addresses them in his favor before anyone can retaliate against his own work. This is a very important tool also because Carr is arguing against the internet which most people find to be beneficial, such as a professor from Stanford, who conducted a study to see the differences betweens students writing from the 1980’s to her current students in the early 2000’s, who says “They’re writing so much more than students before them ever did. It’s stunning”(Thompson 67). So Carr is holding onto the short end of the stick in his argument and will need to find as many ways to prevent himself from being argued against. One key points in Carr’s article is when he states:
“Most of the arguments made against the printing press were correct, even prescient.” But, again, the doomsayers were unable to imagine the myriad blessings that the printed word would deliver.(Carr 6)
He argues that past intellectuals have criticized the new inventions such as the printing press and the introduction of writing but in the end, these inventions proved to have a positive impact on society. This section of his argument is key as it addresses his audience directly and states that he is a man such as Plato and Squarciafico who criticize these new glorious inventions.  And while they were right about what they had stated, the wonders overcame the worries. This was a very persuasive section as it had turned away his criticizers, he is saying that he doesn’t believe that in the end the internet won't come out to be this glorious innovation, but instead he is just saying that he has many worries about what the internet will do to our civilization in the short run.
Not only does Carr just disassemble all counterarguments to help show that he is aware of what others might counter argue, but he also presents that he is a credible source himself as he uses ethos. Many writers seem to lack any credibility at all in the topic they are writing about and it gives the reader disbelief in what the writer is saying, but Carr shows that he himself has been affected by this inability to read and write the same way. He begins this article with ethos to immediately give himself credibility by stating, “For more than a decade now,I’ve been spending a lot of time online surfing and searching” and he also states the results of this, “Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy” (Carr 1).  By stating this he displays that he has a sense for what he is talking about and the way he states it makes it prevalent that this shorter reading span has only been occurring since his prolonged usage of the internet and that it hasn’t always been a part of his life. In doing this he has also extended his claim by discerning the view that this lack of focus due to technology has only affected the youth and that it is not something that one can be diagnosed with but instead they are born into this new era where technology surrounds them and it is all that is familiar. but it proves that even the elder generations can adopt this symptom and it is harmful. So in this statement he provides the audience with credibility also while extending his claim even farther.
Throughout Carr’s paper he is able to construct the argument that questions whether the Internet is dulling our minds down and in a sense making us “stupid”. He argues this by presenting a claim and then backing it with concrete evidence making it very persuasive in its own sense but he also fills his paper with more persuasive strategies that make it nearly impossible for someone to present him with a counter argument or to challenge his claims. The strategies he uses to do this are prolepsis, pathos and ethos. One strategy that really stood out what prolepsis as it is such a basic tool for persuasive arguments but many writers still neglect it although it is one of the strongest strategies in developing an argument. By using a mixture of these strategies along with presenting a claim backed with solid evidence, Carr has constructed a very persuasive paper

Carr Draft

The past century has provided the earth with a massive technological landslide in the form of cell phones, radios and what many describe as the leading advancement of our civilization, The Internet. After the Internets public release it has provided an everyday citizen with access to the largest library in the world known as the World Wide Web. Although the Internet started out as a source that rarely provided success with slow and glitchy servers, and very few had a viable source of access, it awed the public audience as it was something that no one could have ever imagined coming into existence. Today the internet is bustling with high speeds and more websites than you could visit in a lifetime, ranging from how to bake a cake to how to solve quantum mechanics, the possibilities of the internet are endless. Although the internet has created a golden brick road leading to endless answers, it has stirred up great controversy. In 2008 the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” was written by Nicholas Carr discusses the worldwide debate on whether the internet is doing more good for the public or is it dimming us down. Carrs main argument is that the internet has created a negative effect on the human brain as it has caused it to be always wanting more information more rapidly and it causes the mind to always become distracted and thinking about other things. In this paper I will explore the rhetorical strategies implemented in Carr's argument and discuss whether he has created a persuasive argument.

One of the most efficient tools implemented by Carr is the usage of Big Name comparisons, the main one being the references often made to the film 2001: A Space Odyssey mainly during the scene where David Bowman is disassembling the artificial intelligence known as HAL. He uses this scene as a comparison to how the internet is "tinkering with [his] brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory"(Carr 1). In this comparison Carr is describing how he is similarly suffering the same cognitive effects as he attempts to immerse himself in longer texts but cannot succeed. This comparison provides a good base for his argument, especially for those who have viewed the film, as it provides pathos as some find themselves in the same predicament that HAL and Carr are in. The specific comparison not only provided a stable emotional connection between the reader and the subject Carr is addressing, but it also provided a connection between the movie as a whole. It provides a larger connection as HAL in the film is controlling the passengers on the spacecraft the same way that the internet is controlling and manipulating the users. By utilizing the techniques of comparing Carr’s argument to a Big Name that many can compare to allows the reader to immerse themselves in a deeper level of the argument as it provides them with a sense of pathos.

One of the strongest tools used by Carey that gives his argument a chance against those who oppose it is the use of prolepsis. Prolepsis is a very strong tool when writing a persuasive piece as it takes the counterarguments and addresses them in his favor before anyone can retaliate against his own work. This is a very important tool also because Carr is arguing against the internet which most people find to be beneficial, so Carr is holding onto the short end of the stick in his argument and will need to find as many ways to prevent himself from being argued against. One key points in Carr’s article is when he states:

“Most of the arguments made against the printing press were correct, even prescient.” But, again, the doomsayers were unable to imagine the myriad blessings that the printed word would deliver.(Carr 6)

He argues that past intellectuals have criticized the new inventions such as the printing press and the introduction of writing but in the end, these inventions proved to have a positive impact on society. This section of his argument is key as it addresses his audience directly and states that he is a man such as Plato and Squarciafico who criticize these new glorious inventions, and while they were right about what they had stated, the wonders overcame the worries. This was a very persuasive section as it had turned away his criticizers as he is saying that he doesn’t believe that in the end the internet won't come out to be this glorious innovation, but instead he is just saying that he has many worries about what the internet will do to our civilization in the short run.

Not only does Carr just disassemble all counterarguments to help show that he aware of what others might counterargue, but he also presents that he is a credible source himself as he uses ethos. Many writers seem to lack credibility at all in the topic they are writing about and it gives the reader disbelief in what the writer is saying, but Carr shows that he himself has been affected by this inability to read and write the same way. He begins this article with ethos to immediately give himself credibility by stating “For more than a decade now,I’ve been spending a lot of time online surfing and searching” and he also states the results of this “Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy” (Carr 1). By stating this he displays that he has a sense for what he is talking about and the way he states it makes it prevalent that this shorter reading span has only been occurring since his prolonged usage of the internet and that it hasn’t always been a part of his life. In doing this he has also extended his claim by discerning the view that this lack of focus due to technology has only affected the youth and that it is not something that one can be diagnosed with but instead they are born into this new era where technology surrounds them and it is all that is familiar. but it proves that even the elder generations can adopt this symptom and it is harmful. So in this statement he provides the audience with credibility also while extending his claim even farther.

Throughout Carr’s paper he is able to construct the argument that questions whether the Internet is dulling our minds down and in a sense making us “stupid”. He argues this by presenting a claim and then backing it with concrete evidence making it very persuasive in its own sense but he also fills his paper with more persuasive strategies that make it nearly impossible for someone to present him with a counter argument or to challenge his claims, the strategies he uses to do this are prolepsis, pathos and ethos. By using a mixture of these strategies along with presenting a claim backed with solid evidence, Carr has constructed a very persuasive paper.

Is Google Making us Stupid? Part 2

Brett Stinson 

RWS 100 

Professor Werry

The past century has provided the earth with a massive technological landslide in the form of cell phones, radios and what many describe as the leading advancement of our civilization, The Internet. After the Internets public release it has provided an everyday citizen with access to the largest library in the world known as the World Wide Web. Although the Internet started out as a source that rarely provided success with slow and glitchy servers, and very few had a viable source of access, it awed the public audience as it was something that no one could have ever imagined coming into existence. Today the internet is bustling with high speeds and more websites than you could visit in a lifetime, ranging from how to bake a cake to how to solve quantum mechanics, the possibilities of the internet are endless. Although the internet has created a golden brick road leading to endless answers, it has stirred up great controversy. In 2008 the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” was written by Nicholas Carr discusses the worldwide debate on whether the internet is doing more good for the public or is it dimming us down. Carrs main argument is that the internet has created a negative effect on the human brain as it has caused it to be always wanting more information more rapidly and it causes the mind to always become distracted and thinking about other things. In this paper I will explore the rhetorical strategies implemented in Carr's argument and discuss whether he has created a persuasive argument.

One of the most efficient tools implemented by Carr is the usage of Big Name comparisons, the main one being the references often made to the film 2001: A Space Odyssey mainly during the scene where David Bowman is disassembling the artificial intelligence known as HAL. He uses this scene as a comparison to how the internet is "tinkering with [his] brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory"(Carr 1). In this comparison Carr is describing how he is similarly suffering the same cognitive effects as he attempts to immerse himself in longer texts but cannot succeed. This comparison provides a good base for his argument, especially for those who have viewed the film, as it provides pathos as some find themselves in the same predicament that HAL and Carr are in. The specific comparison not only provided a stable emotional connection between the reader and the subject Carr is addressing, but it also provided a connection between the movie as a whole. It provides a larger connection as HAL in the film is controlling the passengers on the spacecraft the same way that the internet is controlling and manipulating the users. By utilizing the techniques of comparing Carr’s argument to a Big Name that many can compare to allows the reader to immerse themselves in a deeper level of the argument as it provides them with a sense of pathos.

One of the strongest tools used by Carey that gives his argument a chance against those who oppose it is the use of prolepsis. Prolepsis is a very strong tool when writing a persuasive piece as it takes the counterarguments and addresses them in his favor before anyone can retaliate against his own work. This is a very important tool also because Carr is arguing against the internet which most people find to be beneficial, so Carr is holding onto the short end of the stick in his argument and will need to find as many ways to prevent himself from being argued against. One key points in Carr’s article is when he states:

“Most of the arguments made against the printing press were correct, even prescient.” But, again, the doomsayers were unable to imagine the myriad blessings that the printed word would deliver.(Carr 6)

He argues that past intellectuals have criticized the new inventions such as the printing press and the introduction of writing but in the end, these inventions proved to have a positive impact on society. This section of his argument is key as it addresses his audience directly and states that he is a man such as Plato and Squarciafico who criticize these new glorious inventions, and while they were right about what they had stated, the wonders overcame the worries. This was a very persuasive section as it had turned away his criticizers as he is saying that he doesn’t believe that in the end the internet won't come out to be this glorious innovation, but instead he is just saying that he has many worries about what the internet will do to our civilization in the short run.

Is Google Making Us Stupid? Intro and Body Paragraph

Brett Stinson

RWS 100

Professor Werry

The past century has provided the earth with a massive technological landslide in the form of cell phones, radios and what many describe as the leading advancement of our civilization, The Internet. After the Internets public release it has provided an everyday citizen with access to the largest library in the world known as the World Wide Web. Although the Internet started out as a source that rarely provided success with slow and glitchy servers, and very few had a viable source of access, it awed the public audience as it was something that no one could have ever imagined coming into existence. Today the internet is bustling with high speeds and more websites than you could visit in a lifetime, ranging from how to bake a cake to how to solve quantum mechanics, the possibilities of the internet are endless. Although the internet has created a golden brick road leading to endless answers, it has stirred up great controversy. In 2008 the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” was written by Nicholas Carr discusses the worldwide debate on whether the internet is doing more good for the public or is it dimming us down. Carrs main argument is that the internet has created a negative effect on the human brain as it has caused it to be always wanting more information more rapidly and it causes the mind to always become distracted and thinking about other things. In this paper I will explore the rhetorical strategies implemented in Carr's argument and discuss whether he has created a persuasive argument.

One of the most efficient tools implemented by Carr is the usage of Big Name comparisons, the main one being the references often made to the film 2001: A Space Odyssey mainly during the scene where David Bowman is disassembling the artificial intelligence known as HAL. He uses this scene as a comparison to how the internet is "tinkering with [his] brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory"(Carr 1). In this comparison Carr is describing how he is similarly suffering the same cognitive effects as he attempts to immerse himself in longer texts but cannot succeed. This comparison provides a good base for his argument, especially for those who have viewed the film, as it provides pathos as some find themselves in the same predicament that HAL and Carr are in. The specific comparison not only provided a stable emotional connection between the reader and the subject Carr is addressing, but it also provided a connection between the movie as a whole. It provides a larger connection as HAL in the film is controlling the passengers on the spacecraft the same way that the internet is controlling and manipulating the users. By utilizing the techniques of comparing Carr’s argument to a Big Name that many can compare to allows the reader to immerse themselves in a deeper level of the argument as it provides them with a sense of pathos.

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Nicholas Carr in his article "Is Google Making us Stupid?" he discusses the effects of prolonged internet usage on the humans ability to use critical thinking in everyday life. He includes various types of evidence in his piece such as anecdotes, research, facts and examples. Not only does he use just plain evidence to persuade us but he also goes on to use various rhetorical strategies like precedent, authority and exemplification.

For-Profit Final Draft

Education in the United States has been becoming a larger priority for citizens to have as every new year passes. More employers are looking for people with degrees in the corresponding field of the work they will be doing. Although more employers are looking for a degree and more students are going to college every year, the limit for students that large Universities can take in, both public and private, is reaching its maximum intake of students. With this overflow of students that want a higher education, entrepreneurs like John Sperling and Michael Clifford are stepping in and innovating a branch of higher education known as For-Profit institutions designed for the students that were ignored from a standard university. For-Profit colleges have made a large change in the past decade as they have turned from being mainly “Mom and Pop Trade” Trade schools to being publicly traded giants. With this large growth in the past years it has allowed for many schools such as University of Phoenix and Grand Canyon University to build schools all over the nation for easy access by the United States. With this large uprise up schools they allow more students to attend every year. Although these schools sound like saviors for the rejected students, many have another view on what they really are. Many see the schools as a powerful empire that is out to steal these students money and leave the in the dirt in the end. Kevin Carey wrote an article called “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges”, He goes and reaches out to some of the powerful leaders of this industry such as Michael Clifford, the owner of Grand Canyon University, to find out what these schools are all about. He discusses all of the horrific horror stories of many of the students that went to these schools who feel as though they were scammed and left with nothing but a massive pile of

debt, but in all he is out to defend the For-Profit school system and argues that they are a viable place for education. Carey and many others claim that For-Profit colleges are just looking to make money out of these students and they will take in anyone that is eligible for a loan no matter how underqualified they are or how likely they will be to default on their loan and even if they succeed in the school they are left with a practically worthless degree. In my paper I will discuss Carey’s paper and complicate it and extend the ideas that are made using outside sources from various professionals that view the For-Profit sector as adequate higher education or unsatisfactory.

In Carey’s Article he discusses how the For-Profit schools mainly target low-income families mainly because they are more likely to receive government loans which will help them pay for the hefty tuition that the schools charge, but although they are able to find government aid doesn’t mean that they will be able to pay the loan back in the end. This is why the For-Profit sector has led so many students to default on their loans, because they require low-income students to take on massive amounts of debt to get their degree that many students end up not being able to receive in the end as many students will likely drop out. It is shown that the graduation rate for the University of Phoenix online campus is less than 5% for students that have received a degree in 6 years and only .5% graduate in 4 years.(College Results) With the graduation rate so low for these students it  leaves them in the end with no degree to help them get the job they will need to pay off all of the debt that they have accumulated. As Carey states in his work “Large debt plus small income equals high risk of default”(Carrey 9). He says this because many of the students will end up defaulting on their loans because they didn’t have the funds necessary to pay for the loan they took out and now that they are left with their same previous income and no degree to help them find a better job, they have no other option but to default on their loans. Although Carey believes that it is the schools fault that they end up defaulting but the the Harvard scholars that wrote the article “For-Profit Colleges”(The Future of Children) think otherwise. In their article they state how the students at For-Profits are hurt financially but they don’t believe that it is the schools fault as they state “Students in for-profits tend to be in more precarious financial situations than other students before they enroll. Many of those from for-profits who defaulted on their loans or were unable to find work might have been in the same predicament even if they had attended a public or nonprofit institution”(Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2013). This statement shows that in general even if this student had gone to a regular non-profit university they would have had the same likeliness to default on their loan. Some believe that the reason for the high default rates is that the For-Profit “recruiters” will sign up anyone they can, no matter how likely they are to default on their loans. But the employees of the for-profit schools such as Michael Clifford of the Grand Canyon University denies that the schools “have any responsibility whatsoever for how much students borrow and whether they can pay it back”(Carrey 8). The Harvard scholars help qualify Carey’s text as they support the side that it is not the For-Profit schools fault that the students default but they believe that the students who default were destined to fail from the start. The students later go on to compare the Community College system to the For-Profits as they are both feasible options for students that were rejected from the public Universities. They claim that the For-Profits have a much better guidance system that allows the students to complete the classes they need and graduate in a short period of time. They discovered a study conducted by James Rosenbaum, Regina Deil-Amen and Ann Person where they researched and compared the completion rates between community colleges and For-Profits alone and they came to the conclusion that “”Private Occupational Colleges”(Meaning for-profit, proprietary or career colleges) had higher completion

ratings than students at community colleges”(Deming, Goldin, & Katz, 2013). These students are helping support and qualify Carey’s claims as they are stating that although the For-Profits are more expensive than the community colleges, the for-profits have higher completion ratings and they offer much better programs with more guidance that the community colleges are unable to offer.

Carey makes many claims speaking against what the For-Profit schools are doing. One of the claims he makes is how the For-Profit schools are fighting against many of the government laws being created to limit the money the schools can receive from government subsidies. He states that “the “90/10 rule,” a federal rule that bars for-profits from receiving more than 90 percent of their revenue from federal aid”(Carey, 2010). He goes on to state that the schools are making attempts to re brand as “Market based” instead of for-profit to make it seem as though they are less in it for the money and more in it to give the students a better education. Although Carey is on the side to enforce these sorts of laws, there are many people out there that believe that these schools are being singled out and that these laws shouldn't only be enforced on for-profits but on the higher education sector as a whole. People such as Brian Darling, an aide to senators on the US counsel, believes that “the non-profit sector feels threatened”(Darling 2010), and that they have aided with the government to limit the power that the for-profits can hold. Darling supports the Education for All Act which forbids the singling out of students from proprietary and vocational schools. He complicates Carey’s claim by supporting the enforcement of laws, such as one requiring the department of education to evaluate students of post-secondary schools and deny them if they are deemed unfit, would make it very difficult for these schools to operate. As Darling states that it would be more difficult for the institutions to operate if the students were evaluated, there is much more room to argue that these rules should be enforced because the students that they are taking in are not fit to take on this higher education and being able to pay it off in the end. Others that help strengthen Carey's case such as a professor of law at the University of Miami argue that “By civic and economic standards, for-profit higher education outcomes are disappointing”(James, 2011). James believes that many students are misguided and they should be provided with the facts on graduation rates and salaries after graduation so that students can see the dangers and make the decision for themselves whether they want to take the risk of entering into the school or not. Both authors complicate the Claim Carey makes and states that the government shouldn’t take only the for-profits into discussion when creating these laws and that instead of singling the schools out in these laws that would limit the amount of money the schools can make, the schools should be able to provide the student with enough information on what the school can offer them and how likely they are to succeed. Darling later states that the government making these laws “unfairly hold for-profit institutions to a higher standard for student debt and default than all other institutions of higher education”(Darling, 2010)  But much of the reason these laws are being created are not because of the large risk of default but because the hgih percentage of federal aid coming to for-profits. Carey states that “A quarter of federal aid goes to for-profits, while they enroll only 10 percent of students”(Carey, 2010). Although these claims made by these professionals do complicate the claims made by Carey, the claims Carey makes prove to show compelling evidence that the government should be able to put a higher regulation on the federal aid the for profits can receive as they are such a small percentage of higher education but they still gain such a large proportion from the government

After doing in-depth research on the topic of higher education in the form of For-Profit schools, it is shown by the evidence provided by Carey and various outside sources that this sector of higher education proves to be a vital source of education for low income students rejected by the formal university. The claims made by Carey showed that he believed that the For-Profits were a suitable place for education but had stated that it should also be regulated slightly by the government. Some outside sources had qualified Carey while others had complicated his claims, but in the end the claims originally made by Carey had been proven much more applicable. Although For-Profits do have a much higher price tag than those on community colleges, the For-Profits provide much better programs that allow students to get their degrees completed in a short amount of time and keep them on track throughout the way.