[thechat] Shyness linked with Internet research

[Erika Meyer]

Hugh wrote:

>Curiosity leads me to ask:
>
>>  phonetic alphabet - bad
>
>How?

http://alphabetvsgoddess.com/
fascinating book by a brain surgeon... meticulously documented.  I am
a fan of this man.

I challenged him on a couple of things via email, and he wrote right
back and defended himself quite well.

>  > printing press - bad
>
>How?

it caused mass literacy.  (see link above).

>  > agriculture - bad
>
>How?

this one's better established.

Here's an anthoplogy prof home page
http://www.indiana.edu/~anthro/faculty/cook.html

quote:
"My research suggests that a significant deterioration in health
attends the adoption of agriculture, but that at least some
agricultural groups suffered few health consequences after the use of
maize was established."

this explains a bit more:
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant475/Papers/baggett2.html

more (wrap):
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/cslarsen/larsen.html


the point being that all of these "revolutions" in society : literacy
and agriculture being two examples... have had detrimental as well as
beneficial effects.


>I guess I could bop you on the head with a large carrot that
>I learned to grow from a book while reading a ponetic alphabet.

My dad showed me how to grow carrots.  He also showed me how to
gather wild foods.  Many cultures got along very sustainably without
an alphabet.

Oral tradition is good for the memory, and it forces people to
interact face to face... whether or not you believe Shlain's
brain-change stuff.

Schlain says the act of reading changes the way our brain develops,
and not for the better, at least where femininity is concerned.  I
would also add that writing enables empires (and nation-states) to
form, and that in itself is a very drastic change from the small
tribal groups that humans evolved to live in.

>But that's the 'bad' person, not the tool.

The medium is the message, baby.

Erika
--