Print Culture and the Quality of Discourse

[Glaurung]

Has anyone here read Neil Postman's work 'Amusing Ourselves to Death'? The general argument of the work is that the transition from the printed word to television as the main medium of cultural discourse has had a detrimental effect on the quality of said discourse.

Essentially nuance and complexity do not translate well on a medium that is primarily visual. Consequently the discourse becomes centred upon image rather than substantive argument. As a result we have suffered a technologically induced cultural ADHD and the implication is that the way society thus conducts itself has become more basic and ever increasingly irrational.

To see this, when one reads a text written for a general audience before the television era one will notice that the complexity of the style is generally far more advanced than a text written today. In effect, the standards have plummeted. Observe the general level of the presidential addresses before the television era and compare them to those of the post-television presidents.

The state of our union is … dumber: how linguistic standards have declined in the president's address

What do you think? Has our technological advancement actually diminished our collective, cultural attention span thus diminishing our ability for quality cultural discourse?

 

[SomeRandom]

Oh people have been saying that since the printing press was invented and literature became "mainstream."Oh look at the unwashed masses and their hip lingo denigrating language as we know it. Discourse is becoming more and more inane, blah blah blah. My dad would often lament of similar hand wringing he witnessed during his own youth and he grew up during the freaking depression. Most notably the Rhyming Slang which became popular at the time. An affront to "real language." A plummeting of discourse, if you will. Christ, they probably said the same of Shakespeare back in his day. What with all his sullying the traditional language with his vulgar anglicizing. Dumbing down things for his audience.

We have always been impatient, always with short attention spans, it's just that the voices of everyone are now amplified instead of the snooty few having a lions share of the platform.
Although I do agree that modern English seems to be rather plain in comparison to previous "iterations." I mean the discourses involving say Oscar Wilde or Plato do tend to have more........flavour.
But verbosity doesn't equate to intelligent. There is something to be said for concise, break downs of concepts.

Having said that, however, today's "discourse" is probably more like

 

[Glaurung]

Oh people have been saying that since the printing press was invented and literature became "mainstream.

The point is that information isn't neutral of the mediums which present it. In other words, each medium has an inherent bias. Books have a bias towards rational, complex thought due to both the premeditated nature of writing and the complex cognitive focus required to consume and interpret that writing. Television (by which I mean all audio-visual media) on the other hand demands very little cognitive commitment. If one isn't required to commit much effort into the consumption and interpretation of information then that leads to a bias for material which draws attention without focus. It must become ever more simplistic.

Discourse is becoming more and more inane, blah blah blah

It has and this is objectively demonstrable.

We have always been impatient, always with short attention spans, it's just that the voices of everyone are now amplified instead of the snooty few having a lions share of the platform.
Although I do agree that modern English seems to be rather plain in comparison to previous "iterations." I mean the discourses involving say Oscar Wilde or Plato do tend to have more........flavour.
But verbosity doesn't equate to intelligent. There is something to be said for concise, break downs of concepts.

It's not simply about verbosity, it's about our ability to even comprehend at all.

Reading does more than to simply increase one's vocabulary, it exercises the parts of the brain which deal with logical thought, comprehension and attention. The fact is that fewer people read and this is having a physical effect on our brains. The consequence is that over time our civilisation is becoming less rational. To function well in a society where text is the main method of mass communication one cannot help but to develop the cognitive functions which are also conductive to logical, complex thought. These days to be a part of the cultural dialogue you don't actually have to read and thus develop those cognitive functions, you simply have to present the best image. Substance is anathema when the conversation is almost completely visual.

The printing press was resisted, because it made information accessible to the masses. The danger is that audio-visual media has been almost totally embraced without any real thought of its long term cultural implications. It doesn't matter how much information is out there and accessible to the public, if the public by-in-large no longer have the capability to consume and interpret it beyond an elementary school level. (Or even care to).

 

[SomeRandom]

The point is that information isn't neutral of the mediums which present it. In other words, each medium has an inherent bias. Books have a bias towards rational, complex thought due to both the premeditated nature of writing and the complex cognitive focus required to consume and interpret that writing. Television (by which I mean all audio-visual media) on the other hand demands very little cognitive commitment. If one isn't required to commit much effort into the consumption and interpretation of information then that leads to a bias for material which draws attention without focus. It must become ever more simplistic.

Not necessarily. The written word was oft used as a political tool, an effective way to distribute propaganda. People were easily led astray with misinformation before the age of television. Especially since information could be much more easily controlled. Even after television it took until the age of the internet for many to truly break free of such control. Still can be controlled obviously. But you know what I mean.

Besides the visual mediums can convey a lot in very few words. The avant garde scene and the "arthouse" are still using the medium to convey very complex philosophical thoughts through visuals. Have been since cinema was born.
Of course they are not mainstream, but mainstream was always a little bit more "lowest common denominator."
Regardless of the era.

It has and it is objectively demonstrable.

Interesting, but I disagree. We are in an age where information is constantly bombarding people. Streamlining information isn't necessarily dumbing things down, merely adapting to this new way of distribution for the masses. Of course, people becoming more and more complacent with such information is a thing. But I doubt that's new.

Reading does more than to simply increase one's vocabulary, it exercises the parts of the brain which deal with logical thought, comprehension and attention. The fact is that fewer people read and this is having a physical effect on our brains. The consequence is that over time our civilisation is becoming less rational. To function well in a society where text is the main method of mass communication one cannot help but to develop the cognitive functions which are also conductive to logical, complex thought. These days to be a part of the cultural dialogue you don't actually have to read and thus develop those cognitive functions, you simply have to present the best image. Substance is anathema when the conversation is almost completely visual.

And what of people with dyslexia? Are they somehow incapable of contributing the conversation in meaningful ways?
Reading is absolutely a good way to develop cognitive functions, but it's not the only way. Learning math can achieve the same thing. And does not necessarily require reading comprehension (insofar as reading books I mean) so long as you can read numbers and follow equations. I knew plenty of people who were highly intelligent math loving "nerds" but would not pick up a book if you paid them. Perhaps that changed after Uni. I dunno. Either way reading is not necessarily a sign of intelligence or lack thereof.
Also, I question the implication that reading, serious reading, like as a hobby, was ever mainstream. Serious readers have always been outcasts.
Besides it's not like it's a completely intellectual endeavor. There has always been "junk food" in literature. Penny dreadfuls, pulp fiction, dime novels etc. Some endured, like Batman, HP Lovecraft, Dick Turpin and various comic books. Some didn't. Eh.
I am a reader, I love reading. So I run in quite a few "serious reader" circles. The members run along a spectrum of YA obsessed fangirls/boys, serious linguistic nerds, classic eaters, shallow readers, snooty know it alls and eclectic collectors. And even those somewhere in between. Looking at those who "actually read" is a little more complex than just "more people read more often back in the day, so they were more intelligent than today."

The printing press was resisted, because it made information accessible to the masses. The danger is that audio-visual media has been almost totally embraced without any real thought of its long term cultural implications. It doesn't matter how much information is out there and accessible to the public, if the public by-in-large no longer have the capability to consume and interpret it beyond an elementary school level. (Or even care to).

That I can agree with. There are many implications in such mindless consuming. Very few of which are good.

 

[Skwim]

Has anyone here read Neil Postman's work 'Amusing Ourselves to Death'? The general argument of the work is that the transition from the printed word to television as the main medium of cultural discourse has had a detrimental effect on the quality of said discourse.

"Cultural discourse"? You mean our method of attaining knowledge and understanding?

Essentially nuance and complexity do not translate well on a medium that is primarily visual. Consequently the discourse becomes centred upon image rather than substantive argument. As a result we have suffered a technologically induced cultural ADHD and the implication is that the way society thus conducts itself has become more basic and ever increasingly irrational.

Sounds like a lot of self-conscious bull twattle. (I suspect you enjoy the sound of your own voice far too much.)

To see this, when one reads a text written for a general audience before the television era one will notice that the complexity of the style is generally far more advanced than a text written today.

You mean pre-TV text like:

"Persia had always looked upon European Greece as politically insignificant, for it had scarcely half the territorial extent of one of her satrapies. Her expeditions for compelling its obedience had, however, taught her the military qualities of its people. In her forces were incorporated Greek mercenaries, esteemed the very best of her troops. She did not hesitate sometimes to give the command of her armies to Greek generals, of her fleets to Greek captains. In the political convulsions through which she had passed, Greek soldiers had often been used by her contending chiefs. These military operations were attended by a momentous result. They revealed, to the quick eye of these warlike mercenaries, the political weakness of the empire and the possibility of reaching its centre. After the death of Cyrus on the battle-field of Cunaxa, it was demonstrated, by the immortal retreat of the ten thousand under Xenophon, that a Greek army could force its way to and from the heart of Persia.
Source: HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE by John William Draper, p.5
​

As opposed to post-TV text like:

In 547 (or a few years later), the Persian king Cyrus the Great conquered the region that is now called Turkey. His son Cambyses went on to add Egypt to the Achaemenid Empire (525 BCE). Under his successor Darius I the Great (r.522-486), the Persians for the first time invaded Europe, where Thrace was subdued.
Since the days of Cyrus, the Greek towns in western Turkey - usually called the Ionian cities - belonged to the Achaemenid Empire, but in 499 they decided to revolt against those that had been their rulers for almost half a century. The men who ruled the Ionian towns on behalf of the Persian kings were expelled, and the help of the mainland Greeks was invoked. Although Athens sent a force to help the Ionians, the rebels were brought to heel.
source
​

?​

In effect, the standards have plummeted. Observe the general level of the presidential addresses before the television era and compare them to those of the post-television presidents.

The state of our union is … dumber: how linguistic standards have declined in the president's address

So you take difficulty of reading as a mark of advanced communication? From your linked site;

41. James Madison
Avg. reading level 21.6
Average sentence
"In reviewing the scenes through which it has been attained we
can rejoice in the proofs given that our political institutions,
founded in human rights and framed for their preservation, are
equal to the severest trials of war, as well adapted to the ordinary periods
of repose."

38. John Quincy Adams
Avg. reading level 19.9
Average sentence
"The public faith no less than the just rights of individuals
and the interest of the community itself appears to require
further provision for the speedy settlement of those claims,
which I therefore recommend to the care and attention of the
Legislature."​

In contrast to

2. Barack Obama
Avg. reading level 9.4
Average sentence
"But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts
the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow."

1. George H.W. Bush
Avg. reading level 8.6
Average sentence
"Education is the one investment that means more for our future,
because it means the most for our children."
​

To each his own, but I'll take brevity over verbosity any day.

.

 

[Glaurung]

Not necessarily. The written word was oft used as a political tool, an effective way to distribute propaganda. People were easily led astray with misinformation before the age of television. Especially since information could be much more easily controlled. Even after television it took until the age of the internet for many to truly break free of such control. Still can be controlled obviously. But you know what I mean.

Certainly but I don't see how audio-visual media does anything to make people less susceptible to propaganda. It makes things worse if anything. The internet on the other hand is great in that it has challenged the ability for a central authority to control the flow of information available to the public. There's a drawback to this though. Since the individual has much greater control over the content they are exposed to, it results the creation of personal echo-chambers. This over the long run creates a feedback loop which results in the possible development of extreme ideological views.

Besides the visual mediums can convey a lot in very few words. The avant garde scene and the "arthouse" are still using the medium to convey very complex philosophical thoughts through visuals. Have been since cinema was born.
Of course they are not mainstream, but mainstream was always a little bit more "lowest common denominator."
Regardless of the era.

I am not saying that screen-media cannot be used be used to convey complex themes and ideas, but that the bias of screen-media is towards the simplistic. The problem is not that the mainstream is designed to appeal to the widest possible audience, but that as a result of that bias towards the simplistic a vicious circle is created wherein the lowest common denominator is driven lower and lower.

And what of people with dyslexia? Are they somehow incapable of contributing the conversation in meaningful ways?

Dyslexia isn't going to be improved by television. It isn't improved by reducing politics to a TV circus.

Reading is absolutely a good way to develop cognitive functions, but it's not the only way. Learning math can achieve the same thing. And does not necessarily require reading comprehension (insofar as reading books I mean) so long as you can read numbers and follow equations. I knew plenty of people who were highly intelligent math loving "nerds" but would not pick up a book if you paid them. Perhaps that changed after Uni. I dunno. Either way reading is not necessarily a sign of intelligence or lack thereof.

Of course, but there's a common element in both reading and doing maths; cognitive effort. Here is the crux of the problem, with video as the dominant medium of communication cognitive commitment in the consumption of information becomes very low. Our ability to focus and even think for a prolong period of time eventually atrophies because video simply doesn't require it. Technology always comes with a trade off. As handy as a GPS may be for example, if you rely on it too much then it's going to hurt your ability to navigate and learn routes. We see the same phenomenon with calculators. Again, handy to have but in the long run your ability to do simple arithmetic in you head will suffer. I'm starting to question if unchecked technological advances will eventually rob us of our ability to function as human beings. The future in this case won't be Orwellian, it is more likely to be Huxleyan.

Besides it's not like it's a completely intellectual endeavor. There has always been "junk food" in literature. Penny dreadfuls, pulp fiction, dime novels etc. Some endured, like Batman, HP Lovecraft, Dick Turpin and various comic books. Some didn't. Eh.

Of course, junk will always exist (although I kinda like Lovecraft) but that is not per se what I'm talking about. It's whether or not the dominance of video is weakening our ability to concentrate. If you watched the Ted Talk I linked that is what the data is showing.

 

[SomeRandom]

Certainly but I don't see how audio-visual media does anything to make people less susceptible to propaganda. It makes things worse if anything. The internet on the other hand is great in that it has challenged the ability for a central authority to control the flow of information available to the public. There's a drawback to this though. Since the individual has much greater control over the content they are exposed to, it results the creation of personal echo-chambers. This over the long run creates a feedback loop which results in the possible development of extreme ideological views.

Didn't say it didn't. Just that before TV/Movies were a thing, it was a lot easier to control information the masses got their hands on. Before the printing press and education were things in society, it was easier still. Echo chambers have always existed, it's probably easier to find one to suit your own beliefs with today's connectivity though.

I am not saying that screen-media cannot be used be used to convey complex themes and ideas, but that the bias of screen-media is towards the simplistic. The problem is not that the mainstream is designed to appeal to the widest possible audience, but that as a result of that bias towards the simplistic a vicious circle is created wherein the lowest common denominator is driven lower and lower.

Lower and lower? Fart jokes have always been a staple of lowest common denominator humor. Yo mamma jokes have existed since at least Shakespeare's time. (Probably before, during the original Greek Comedies.) The lowest common denominator stuff hasn't really changed all that much. If you read the so called classics, which I assume you have done, you'd find all sorts of really bawdy really vulgar stuff for the drunkards to amuse themselves with.

And I really think you don't give enough credit to visual language. Television/movies/games/plays can evoke all sorts of senses, thinking, feelings etc without so much as a word. Just because it's streamlined doesn't mean it's simple.

Dyslexia isn't going to be improved by television. It isn't improved by reducing politics to a TV circus.

I don't know how one would "improve" dyslexia either way. And politics are a circus. I suspect they've always been like that. I mean the print media didn't spontaneously decide to fuel the fires of political debates and grudges between politicians just because TV was invented. They've been doing that since newspapers were invented.

Of course, but there's a common element in both reading and doing maths; cognitive effort. Here is the crux of the problem, with video as the dominant medium of communication cognitive commitment in the consumption of information becomes very low. Our ability to focus and even think for a prolong period of time eventually atrophies because video simply doesn't require it. Technology always comes with a trade off. As handy as a GPS may be for example, if you rely on it too much then it's going to hurt your ability to navigate and learn routes. We see the same phenomenon with calculators. Again, handy to have but in the long run your ability to do simple arithmetic in you head will suffer. I'm starting to question if unchecked technological advances will eventually rob us of our ability to function as human beings. The future in this case won't be Orwellian, it is more likely to be Huxleyan.

Ehh, it seems very sort of Chicken Little to me. Yeah, I had calculators in school too. They were scientific calculators with specific buttons to use because you literally couldn't calculate the numbers without them. They're used for advanced formulas not basic arithmetic. The closest that came was when we had to do like a whole bunch of formulas in a short time, so it was literally just a time saving thing. But just because we had calculators doesn't mean we didn't learn how to do it in our heads. Theory is still an integral part of school level mathematics. At least where I live. And I went through a pretty recent education curriculum, through public schooling. So it's not like I remember the "good old days" really.
Really you should be more concerned with education practices on the youth. You can still learn all this stuff at school, again at least where I live. Maps were commonly taught to us in Tourism and Geography classes. Despite the fact that we had Navigators readily available to all at the time. Learning orientation was integral to school camps. Some of us millenials do know the old fashioned ways of doing things. We just rely on the older generation to actually teach us this stuff. Because that's kind of how education works. If you guys don't then that's on your heads.

Honestly you don't have to be on an assembly line praying to Ford just because we've made things easier to do with technology. Everyone always says the sky is falling whenever change occurs, especially where technology is concerned. It has yet to do so after god knows how many generations. Look at Japan, they're miles ahead of us. They have functional androids, are they Huxleyan products?

Of course, junk will always exist (although I kinda like Lovecraft) but that is not per se what I'm talking about. It's whether or not the dominance of video is weakening our ability to concentrate. If you watched the Ted Talk I linked that is what the data is showing.

I did. But again, it's very "oh noes the sky is falling." Concentration is different than it was 50 years ago, that doesn't necessarily equal bad just different.

(For the record I'm a huge Batman fan, love Lovecraft, comics and the like.)