DELETED

                       THE DIGIRATA                                              
◤ GO placidly amid the hot links and the distractions, and remember what peace there may be in unplugging. ◤ As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons online and never never flame others or engage in any kind of cyberbullying or cyberstalking. ◤ Key in your truths quietly and clearly; and read what others have to say, too even the dull and the ignorant; for they too have their stories and ideas to impart, even if you disagree. ◤ Avoid angry and aggressive flamers and out of control cyberbullies, for they are vexations to the spirit of the internet. ◤ If you compare your blog with other blogs that are better and have more visitors, you may become vain and bitter, so just enjoy your own blog for what it is and don't  worry abut the big guys. ◤ Enjoy your online achievements, as well as your plans for future downtime. ◤ Keep interested in your own blogging, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. ◤ Exercise caution who you give your personal details to; for the world is full of trickery and Nigerian scams waiting to part you from your money.◤ Be yourself when you are online, or, if it so pleases you, adopt a persona. ◤ Use your real name or a pseudonym for your userid, and let no one steal your password, especially those pesky phishers. ◤ Take kindly the counsel of your fellow bloggers and gracefully chat with your Facebook friends in real time. ◤ But don't over do it, and always take time out to unplug and enjoy a weekly internet sabbath. ◤ You are a child of the Digital Age, no less than the spam and the pixels; and you have every right to blog to your heart's content. ◤And whether or not it is clear to you,no doubt cyberspace is unfurling as it should, well, sort of, and you are part of the great equation, whatever that might turn out to be.◤ Therefore be at peace with Amazon and Yahoo,and make of your Kindles and your nooks what you will. ◤ E-readers to the fore! ◤ Whatever your labors and your aspirations, in the multitasking distractions of cyberspace keep peace with your soul -- if you still have one.◤ Remember: With all its sham, mattdrudgery, atomic typos and qwerky (sic) keyboards, it is still a beautiful online world. ◤ Be cheerful. ◤ Use the smilely emoticon as much as possible. ◤Strive to be a happy camper and unplug often.◢

The Digirata -- by ''Anonymous''

GO placidly amid the hot links and the distractions,
and remember what peace there may be in unplugging.
As far as possible be on good terms with all persons online and never never flame others or engage
in any kind of cyberbullying or cyberstalking.


Key in your truths quietly and clearly;
and read what others have to say, too
even the dull and the ignorant;
for they too have their stories and ideas to impart, even if you disagree.

Avoid angry and aggressive flamers and out of control cyberbullies,
for they are vexations to the spirit of the internet.

If you compare your blog with other blogs that are better and have more visitors,
you may become vain and bitter, so just enjoy your own blog for what it is and don't
worry abut the big guys.


Enjoy your online achievements, as well as your plans for future downtime.

Keep interested in your own blogging, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution who you give your personal details to;
for the world is full of trickery and Nigerian scams waiting
to part you from your money.


Be yourself when you are online,
or, if it so pleases you, adopt a persona.
Use your real name or a pseudonym for your userid,
and let no one steal your password,
especially those pesky phishers.

Take kindly the counsel of your fellow bloggers
and gracefully chat with your Facebook
friends in real time. But don't over do it,
and always take time out to unplug
and enjoy a weekly
''internet sabbath''.

You are a child of the Digital Age,
no less than the SPAM and the pixels;
and you have every right to blog to your heart's content.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt cyberspace is unfurling as it should,
well, sort of, and you are part of the great equation,
whatever that might turn out to be.

Therefore be at peace with Amazon and Yahoo,
and make of your Kindles and your nooks what you will.
E-readers to the fore!

Whatever your labors and your aspirations,
in the multitasking distractions of cyberspace
keep peace with your soul -- if you still have one.

Remember: With all its sham, mattdrudgery and quirky keyboards,
it is still a beautiful online world.

Be cheerful. Be careful, too. Use the smilely emoticon as much as possible, and
strive to be a happy camper. Unplug often.

----------------------------------------------



[An encrypted message found in a bottle floating across a glaring screen in the middle of Manhattan, and keyed-in by an anonymous messenger.]

THE DIGIRATA - a Desiderata for the Digital Age - by "Anonymous 2010" - an encrypted message found in a virtual bottle floating across a screen somewhere in the infinite vaporsphere

"Unplug, unwind, unschlep."
-- Universal Motto of the Great Unplugged

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *   *

GO placidly amid the multitasking distractions and the hot links and know what peace there may be in going unplugged. Sign in with your real name or a userid that hides you from detection, but never flame others or call them names you would never want others to call you.  Respect the opinions of others, no matter how weird or contrarian they may seem to be, because, remember, we are one people, one Earth, one digiverse, one blogosphere, united and together as a force for good and enlightenment in this post-Gutenberg age of ours.

Cyberbullying is a no-no. And know that posting private links or photos you found online to embarass others is punishable in court. Respect the age, race, religion, nationality, user status, ethnicity, gender and sexuality of all your "friends" and nonfriends, and most importantly, never do unto others what you would never want them in a million years to do to you. [Did we say that already? Well, it bears repeating!]


Taste the virtual sushi, sashimi and sake, read to your heart's delight on a nook or a Kindle or your handy iPhone and feel free to post your more memorable "karry-okie" performances on YouTube or Facebook. Never, never bully others. Make friends with complete strangers, if you wish, it's fun, and invite them gently into your cyberhome, but always provide them with a key to the door so can get out if they so choose.

 Remember, cyberspace is a vast theater of the possible and the impossible, and know that not everything you read online is trustworthy or verifiable, or, as Bill Geist of CBS News puts it: "About 95 percent of the news we get online should be vewied in much the same way as we view professional wrestling."


Plug in, plug off, switch over, opt out and go wherever your digital imagination wants to take you. Enter uncharted and un[Google]mapped territories, yes, but always use safeguards and a safety net just in case there are perverts or hackers lurking in the vaporsphere just waiting to entrap you. Beware those annoying phishing expeditions, the ''send me more money'' scams,  the ''you have $25 million dollars in a secret Nigerian bank account" emails and all the other overly-aggressive evil forces of the dark realms.


Whatever you do, never go to bed angry at anyone you've met online! Kiss and make up, hug and make amends, extend the hand of peace and treat everyone online as your brother or sister. Really!


Oh yes, and when you feel overwhelmed and stressed and over-distracted, do what should come naturally: unplug, unwind, unschlep.

Remember, you can walk away from this anytime, there's always an ''internet sabbath'' waiting for your contemplation and enjoyment. YOU are the master of this seemingly soul-less machine and not the other way around, so never let it push you around or tell you what to do. You make the rules.


 [And from now on, please lowercase the word "internet" and let the word gingerly take its uncapped place alongside other lowercased words such as radio, movies, television and books.]

Is there a diffference between reading on screens and reading on paper? Neuroscientists want to know, and the MRI and PET scan research is about to begin. Only brain science can separate the pixels from the pulp, and the likes of Oliver Sacks, Anne Mangen, Maryanne Wolf, Gary Small and Jonah Lehner will soon dish. Listen to them!


Okay, most of all, last word: Enjoy! [Make every second count! Because you only live once!]


-- found in an encrypted message in a virtual bottle floating across a screen in the infinite vaporsphereon August 13, 2010


----------------------------------
Text keyed in by digirata@gmail.com
 while basking in some ''wonder-full'' downtime on a quiet [traffic] island in the middle of Manhattan

An interview with Peter Melzer on the pros and con of reading on screens in the digital age

webposted on August 15, 2010

[NOTE: Peter Melzer is a science and technology writer in his mid-50s, based in Virgina. He used to serve as principal investigator on a study examining Braille reading-related brain activation in people with severe visual disabilities and was very interested in the cognitive aspects of the work.]


DANNY BLOOM: In your opinion, Peter, and in your reading and research, do you think the brain processes reading from a screen differently than reading from a page? And how might this difference, if there is one, be measured or studied?

PETER MELZER: If the screen device provides exactly the experience of reading pages in a book, there may be none. Outcome may depend substantially on screen design. For example, reading text on a CRT monitor is considerably different from reading text on a book page. Because of the refresh rate, the screen is flickering. We may not notice, but our visual system registers the flicker, making the job of analyzing a text exhausting. Modern e-readers use LCD screens that do not flicker. We may find a other shortcomings. But as the technology improves the reading experience, we may anticipate less of a difference in information processing.

A difference in cerebral information processing between screen readers and book readers could be examined non-invasively with neurofunctional mapping using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or the subtractive water method and positron emission tomography (PET), or magneto-encephalography (SQUID). Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is another possibility. Recordings of event-related potentials from the scalp represent a less costly route of exploration that may be useful. The aim of study with any of the above methods would be to determine whether screen readers differ from book readers in their reading-related nerve cell activation in visual cerebral cortex and in association cortex where language is processed and cognitive functions are executed.

Ultimately, however, we wish to find out whether the cognitive abilities of screen readers are different from those of book readers. School psychologists would know what tests to use.

DANNY BLOOM: In your opionion, are html pages so overwrought with information that readers lose focus? What kind of research bears this out?

PETER MELZER: This is my personal impression. A reader needs a lot of concentration to skim for information of interest when confronted with web pages consisting of three long columns of pictures, some moving. The web site of the Huffington Post is a good example.

DANNY BLOOM: In your opionion, how close do you think the visual experience of an e-reader can be made to resemble that of a book, that is, how pleasing to the eye an e-reader page can be made?

PETER MELZER: I do not know. But there are many parameters to consider like color, luminance, brightness, and contrast. Attributes may vary with the angle of view. We never sit entirely still in front of a book. Perhaps LCD screens need a much wider angle of view and change luminance with tilt. I suppose experience will tell.

DANNY BLOOM: You once told me that if the emulation is close enough, we may not find a difference in brain activity, certainly not in the early stages of visual information processing. But, The interesting part would be, if we found a difference in activation in association cortex where language is processed. is there any research on this yet, and if so, do you think the makers of ereaders are concerned about this or do not care at all?

PETER MELZER: I do not know of any brain research comparing screen readers with book readers. The manufacturers of e-readers would be very concerned, if research showed a negative effect of their products on our cognitive abilities. Uncovering differences in cortical activation would be of secondary interest.

DANNY BLOOM: If, in fact, we find out that there is more to electronic screen reading than meets the eye -- That is, whether the computer information age changes the way we process language and whether the effect may be detrimental to the processing of our thoughts -- will these findings have any impact on makers of Kindles and nooks and other ereaders and on the entire ebook industry?

PETER MELZER: Of course, the industry would take such findings very seriously. Educators would bar the devices from schools, if they turned out to be detrimental to our cognitive functions. We only want the best for our children.

DANNY BLOOM: You once told me: "As interesting as such brain activation studies may be, ultimately we shall look at outcome, that is, whether gathering information read from screens degrades our cognitive abilities. We do not need expensive fMRI or PET scans to answer this question. School psychologists use ability tests routinely. They would have to compare children who mainly use computers to children who do not. If performance was degraded, we would have to tease apart whether the cause is the screen or the ubiquitous distractors that web2 presents." Can you say some more about this....?

PETER MELZER: As I stated above, the effects on our mind are of utmost concern. How our brain effects the change is of secondary interest. The cause for cognitive underperformance may not be the screens per se, but the load of information on the web pages and the distractors therein, which may impede our ability of focusing on what is important.

DANNY BLOOM: Have you ever seen or read any of the research papers by Anne Mangen in Norway on these issues -- and what do you think of her work?

PETER MELZER: I have not read any of her work yet.

DANNY BLOOM: If we later find out that reading on paper is very different from reading on screens, either in terms of neuroscience or just in terms of distractability and materiality, do you think the culture at large might benefit from a new word for "screen-reading" -- whatever that word might be -- in order to help better understand the two reading modes by giving them different and maybe competing names? If so, what might YOu nominate for this word or term for reading on screens. marvin Mirsky at MIT AI lab told he likes "screen-reading" as a new term for this. What do you think or can you suggest a better word?

PETER MELZER: ''Screen reading'' sounds fine.

DANNY BLOOM: Gary Small at UCLA has said "the tech train has already left the station and cannot be stopped" and that whatever findings reserachers find out later about the differences between paper reading and screen reading WILL NOT MATTER MUCH to the ereader industry or computer industry, because there is so much money to be made by selling SCREENS? do you agree or disagree?

PETER MELZER: I do believe that the industry must be very interested in manufacturing a product that is most pleasing to the reader. Like smartphones, the one the users like most will carry the market.

DANNY BLOOM: What is your main interest in all this, in terms of reserach or personal insights of your own?

PETER MELZER: I used to serve as principal investigator on a study examining Braille reading-related brain activation in people with severe visual disabilities. I liked the cognitive aspects of the work.

DANNY BLOOM: Thank you, Peter, for your time for this interview.

PETER MELZER: Thank you for taking the time to interview me.

LINK to PETER MELZER's BLOGSITE
http://brainmindinst.blogspot.com/

I see by the snailpapers today that David Bader has a new book out, THE BOOK OF MURRAY, about the .....

......The Life, Teachings and Kvetching of the
Lost Prophet

This remarkable faux Biblical narrative tells the story of the Only Testament Worth Reading's
most unlikely prophet, Murray, son of Irving, of the Tribe of Levi's Jeans (Relaxed
Fit). As ancient scrolls go, I think it's the best book Bader's written.
You can read excerpts at:

http://www.extremely.com/

It's on Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0307453243/theextremelrefor

THE BOOK OF MURRAY will be in bookstores soon, in time for the Jewish Low
Holidays. It's also an excellent Hanukkah Channukah However You Want to Spell It gift. And you doona haf ta bee Jewish to enjoy it. Cordoba House people welcome, too. This is America, after all!



THE BOOK OF MURRAY:
The Life, Teachings and Kvetching of the Lost Prophet
Harmony Books - August 24, 2010
ISBN: 978-0307453242





TO LEARN MORE ABOUT READING
READING vs. SCREENING SEE THIS VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpN78-cJP0

Nicholas Carr makes a point but I counter it here, below:

on his blog, Rough Type, Mr Carr notes: "This would also help explain why the internet (LOWERCASE, NICK!) continues to distract us even when we're not online. Part of our mind is still thinking about that new message that might have just arrived in our inbox. What makes that hypothetical unread message particularly distracting is that it could actually be important. You won't know until you've read it. Admit it: The suspense is killing you."

But Nick, this is no different in a way than long ago before email, waking up in the morning and anticipating what letters might arrive at home from the postman or at the office at work. The suspense never killed us. Even though some of the mail that did arrive later in the day WAS important. I think you are wrong here.

Besides, that ENTIRE NYTimes piece was pure drivel, sophomoric travel writing by Matt Richtel. It really makes the Times look bad to publish such crap there. Those PHDs know nothing!

The Unplugged Challenge: Readers Respond - by Joshua Brustein, New York Times

Danny Blom's 2 minute New York Times Unplugged Challenge Video here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpN78-cJP0

Frederick Forsyth at 72, still going strong.....

There are few sex scenes in Mr Forsyth's books, but he happily admits he has had several intriguing liaisons in his past. Once, when he worked in Prague for Reuters, he was constantly followed by the secret agency, the STB.

One night, at a disco, he met a pretty girl named ''Jana''.

"We had a drink and a dance. It was a hot August night, and I suggested we have a swim in the lake. So we went skinny dipping, then I spread out a rug and we screwed. It was lovely. As I drove her back to the hotel, I remarked that there were no headlights in my rear view mirror.

"Where the hell are the STB," I said.

She replied, 'You just made love to it'."

Hypatia asks the New York Times Joshua Brustein....

I notice your people ranged from teens to 40's. Did no one
older respond, or did you decide not to use any older respondents?

Joshua to respond soon, according to inside sources.

Stelios in the UK wants to know....

A question I have is if writing on a comupter or writing by hand makes a difference in how our brain processes information during the task of writing.

I suggest a functional MRI of people who usually write by hand (at different levels, just admin forms, fiction, academic and so on) and people who write on a computer. I expect that the wiring in the brain will differ between the two groups. Unfortunately, my field is very removed from this area so I cannot personally run any experiments. So, I am putting the idea out there in case somebody takes it up.

The Unplugged Challenge at the New York Times: Readers Respond, including Danny Bloom

Joshua Brustein writes:

Readers of the New York Times took temporary leave of their technological tethers and shared their experiences with The Times in video clips. Unfortunately, Danny Bloom did not color inside the lines as we requested so we rejected his video, but here it is on YouTube  for those who are not afraid to color outside the lines in kindergarten.

Mr Bloom, 41, explained in his 2 minute video why reading on screens is vastly inferior to reading on paper surfaces and why we need a new term for screen-reading, which he calls SCREENING. He also calls for urgent MRI and PET brain scan studies to find out if his hunch is correct, that screening is inferior to reading on paper. See his entertaining and potentially pioneering video here:

In related news, Michelle Francl spent four weeks last year in monastic silence. It was an extreme break. Dr. Francl, a chemistry professor, cut off all social interaction, to the point that she would not even acknowledge a friend passing her in a hallway. But she found another experiment in self-discipline — an attempt to disconnect from her Internet and telephone connections while trying to carry on her normal life — to be a stiffer challenge.

“It’s not as hard as it sounds when there’s nothing to plug into, no Wi-Fi, not even a land line,” she said. “It was much harder to do this short-term at home where there are computers everywhere.”

Stepping back from technology in a world of constant communication can be a difficult task. The New York Times asked readers to temporarily give up their technological tethers and then make a video about the experience. Dr. Francl was one of the dozens of people who responded. You can watch a selection of videos prepared by readers here.

For Jenn Monroe, 40, giving up the Internet and phone led to a desire to purge other technologies from her life.

“I didn’t want to open my computer at all, even though that wasn’t part of the deal,” she said. “I avoided the microwave, which was also sort of strange and surprising to me.”

But for many, finding the right balance can be hard. James Cornell, 18, spent his day away from his cellphone feeling jittery, and worried that he was annoying people by not responding to them. John Stark, 46, told his friends that he wouldn’t be responding to text messages, expecting them to call him on the phone if they needed to communicate. They sent text messages to his wife instead, asking her to relay information to him.

Experts say that, in general, those wanting to control their technology use should approach the task more like a diet than a withdrawal from drugs. The idea is to learn to distinguish between necessary and compulsive consumption.

Winifred Gallagher, the author of “Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life,” said keeping a log of one’s technology use can be a valuable exercise. This technique is adapted from a dieting strategy. Dieters who write down what they eat, said Ms. Gallagher, end up consuming a third fewer calories.

Ms. Gallagher also suggested setting aside specific times and places to use technology, by setting regular intervals at work to check e-mail, for instance, or by resolving not to use the phone in the car, or keeping computers and other devices away from the dinner table.

“Let’s face it, very few of our phone calls and e-mail messages are life and death matters,” she said. “You just have to stop that kind of knee-jerk response to those cues.”

Even small boundaries can make a significant difference, said Edward Hallowell, a psychiatrist and the author of the book “Delivered From Distraction: Getting the Most out of Life with Attention Deficit Disorder.”

He said that when an executive at an investment firm in New York felt like she was spending too much time on e-mail, she solved the problem by simply moving her computer to a different position on her desk.

“She didn’t have to get out of her chair, but she had to swivel,” he said. “The millisecond gave her enough time to stop herself.”

=============

Nice to see this series of videos up, looks great and it's good food for thought. I was asked by the Times to make a video for the Unplugged Challenge, too, on spec, of course, but it was rejected because I did not color inside the lines as requested, I guess. But despite the Times rejection, I put my video on YouTube now, just 2 minutes, with over 700 hits, and while I cannot give the link here due to posting rules, you can find it at YouTube under the title: [Is reading on paper superior to ''reading'' on screens? Yes! Here's why... ]
Nice to see this series of videos up, looks great and it's good food for thought. I was asked by the Times to make a video for the Unplugged Challenge, too, on spec, of course, but it was rejected because I did not color inside the lines as requested, I guess. But here's what my video on YouTube now and it's just 2 minutes, with over 700 hits:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpN78-cJP0

Cyberbullying "involves the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others. -- Bill Belsey

A good definition of cyber-bullying is when the Internet is used to post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person.

Cyberbullying can be defined as: "a situation when a person, teen or adult, is repeatedly 'harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted' by cyberbullies using net forums and anonymous comment boxes on blogs."

Cyber-bullying can include threats, pejorative labels, ganging up on people by making them the subject of ridicule in forums, and posting false statements as fact aimed at humiliation.

Cyber-bullies may disclose victims' personal data (e.g. real name, address, or workplace/schools) or irrelevant Internet or YouTube links at websites or forums or may pose as the identity of a victim for the purpose of publishing material in their name that defames or ridicules them. Some cyberbullies may also instigate others to dislike and gang up on the target.

And the cyberbullies know who they are, even though they themselves sometimes rail against cyberbullies. It's a weird game out there, the Internet, that is.

Letter to Editor of newspaper in Taiwan in Hokklo language

DEAR EDITOR,
LIBERTY TIMES newspaper,
August 7, 2010

by 丹布隆 aka ''Biko Lang''

[Hokklo text by Phik-tông huan- k]

Kin-kìmuî-thé pò-tō，uī ti h tshíunn-kiù sing-i k l t，Lāi-tsìng-pōo
hi-bāng tshòng-tsok「kháu-hō kî-tsik」，kai tsīunn pah bān beh ìng-tsing
ts t ê，thiann liáu ti h ē sīunn behsing gín-á ê kháu-hō。Lāi-tsìng-pōo
tī tshit-gu h té kong-pòo pah bān 「tshui-sing」piau-gíê j p suán
tsok-phín，pau-kuā「sing！t h ti h--a！」「suài-ko bí-líkòtshòng-tsō，-sing
íng-uán khuànn bē ti h！」「ke sing pó-puè，pó-puèTâi-uân」tíng jī-ts p
tiâu，beh tsìn-hîng ts t kè gu h ê bāng-lōo phiò-suán，iu-sìng-tsiá
ē-tàng tit ti h ts t pah bān khoo tsiáng-kin ting-tíng。
-koh，tsú-sètshâkhuànn tsia ê j p suán ê piau-gí，kìng-jiân lóng sī
huâ-gí tsok-phín ！ pit-tsiá khuànn bē ti h jīn-hô tâi-gí、 kheh-gí
kahguan-tsū-bîn-gíê tsok-phín。Tī to-guân tsíng-ts k gí-giân póo-k p ê
tâi-uân，pit-tsiá bôsiong-sìn ìng-tsing kó tiong，bô tâi-gí、kheh-gí kah
guan-tsū-bîn-gí ê tsok-phín。Sīán-nuán Lāi-tsìng-pōo ê tsiòng ping-sím
tāi-uân kan-nā suán huâ-gíkháu-hō ê tsok-phín hōo bāng-lōo phiò-suán？ū
-guān kī miâ ê pîng-sím uí-uân jīn-uî，j p uî tsîng jī-ts p miâ lóng
siunn-kuètsìng-king，huân-hó「suán--ts t-lâi ē piàn tsò iōng-pán」。ts t
êLāi-tsìng-pōo kuann-uân su hā mā piáu-sī，kì-jiân bāng-lōo phiò-suán
tuì-siōng sī siàu-liân-lâng，ìng-kai ài koh khah ū tshòng-ì。tsia ê
ì-kiàn sui-jiân tsin hû-h p tsú-tê， -koh mâbô tiám ti h būn-têê h
k-sim。In iú-ìhik-tsiá-sī bô-ì，bô tshâ-kak ti h tâi-gí、keh-gíkah
guan-tsū-bîn gíê tsok-phín kin-bún ti hbô tsīunn
pang-tuann！tshíunn-kìu sing-i k-l t ê piau-gí lîn-suán，kán-na mā
ín-tsông ts k-kûn kî-sī êt k-tshíu，hōo sin uîguā-kok-lâng ê
pit-tsiátshim-kám put-an。Tshī gín-á，kám kan-nāKóo-lē huâ-gí ts k-kûn
niâ? Lāi-tsìng-pōo piànn kháu-hō ， thê-tshut tsìng-tshikgû-bah，ū-hāu i
h bô-hāu? Mā ài khuànn Tâi-uân kî-tha kok ts k-kûn ê siàu-liân ang-bóo
sī sī ē-tàng tsiap-siū tsit tsióng tuàū kî-sī gán-kong ê tsìng-tsik
gû-bah！tî-hui…。

The Harvard Interview - The New York Times Hiring Code

QUESTION: Can you explain why there have been some many Harvard
College undergrad school grads employed as gatekeepers at the New York
Times newspaper over the years and even now?

ANSWERMAN: As briefly as I can, it goes like this. How often does the
New York Times run an article about what you can expect in a house for
US$1.2 million? Pretty often. Can you recall the Times ever running an
article about what you can expect in an apartment for you and your two
kids when you're making $9 an hour and your spouse isn't in the
picture anymore?
You see, very few people struggle to get into and graduate from
Harvard College undergrad, so that they can then be forced to have to
confront harsh unpleasant realities or inequities. A world in which
people buy $1.2 million homes is far more pleasant than one where
people live hand to mouth their entire lives, especially if you're one
of the people in a $1.2 million home. Got the picture yet?


QUESTION: That's all?

ASNWERMAN: There's more to it than that; I am just warming up.

Much of that avoidance that I mentioned in my first answer, above, I
suspect, comes from the subconscious realization that there is no way
to make the following statement without wanting to smack yourself: "I
studied English at Harvard. And when Harvard lined up that paid
internship for me at that major publishing house, I was the one who
got myself to work every day (unlike the rest of the people in the
world, who are carried into work by their valets) until another
Harvard graduate could line up a job for me. I've paid my dues."

Sure, some people who came out of Harvard scrimped and scraped and
went through a lot of privation, but in reality, how many of the
Harvardians at the NY Tmes came up dirt poor from nothing? And how
much do you want to bet that they are the ones who are writing the
pieces that actually matter?

My suspicion is that a significant number of the Harvardians at the
Times came from families that could afford not only Harvard but all
the small things that helped lead to Harvard: music lessons, trips to
cultural spots, lots of books, quite for studying, enough room to
study in peace, enough food, medical care, dental care, eye exams,
appropriate primary and secondary education, stability, etc. Please
note that most of those things are not self-generated. They are
bonuses you obtain by dint of having been born lucky.

QUESTION: Born lucky?

ANSWERMAN: You know, good genes, family connetions, money, DNA, rich
people. If the Times started letting in "them" (you know, the state
school graduates, or even, God Forbid, a Yale graduate), conflict
would arise. Too many of the State university riff-raff would be
forced after a while to say, "Yeah, we're fighting two wars, the ice
caps are melting, millions of people have no health care, childhood
obesity is increasing, and a large chunk of the manufacturing sector
has relocated to outside the country, effectively wiping out the
middle class, and you're telling us -- in a series of columns -- about
the dog you bought from a breeder? And, dear God help us all, how many
people had to think this was a good idea before it got this far in the
editorial process? If you don't have anything of genuine value to
contribute, couldn't you, well, at least stay out of the way and let
the rest of us do something useful?"

And once that happened, it would be like the day the mayor's kid
figures out that he won all those events at the Fourth of July picnics
the day his father got elected mayor. It's kind of hard to enjoy the
trophies once you realize that. Unless you are really good at kidding
yourself about what "you" accomplished.

Egg-Free Ice Cream Lets Flavors Bloom - New York Times Urgent News Today!

Egg-Free Ice Cream Lets Flavors Bloom

I see by the snailpapers that the New York Times does have a special in-house deal for Harvard undergrad grads.....

A inquisitive bloke somewhere in the Milky Way Galaxy wondered on a New York Times blog recently:

"Is the public aware that 90 percent of Times writers and editors are from Harvard undergrad? Is the Times a Harvard club or what? I don't get it. The Wash Post, too. Total elitism, sad to say. Nothing will change. Even Jennifer 8. Lee was Harvard, and so is Vindu Goel. The list goes on and on. Why Harvard? Do they know something we other non-entitled people don't know?"

That's when Alex Gallifrey weighed in on July 25 with a long reply, that basically makes a lot of sense. COMMENTS WELCOME, pro and con, BELOW:

Alex wrote:

''As briefly as I can, it goes like this. How often does the Times run an article about what you can expect in a house for $1.2 million? Pretty often. Can you recall the Times ever running an article about what you can expect in an apartment for you and your two kids when you're making $9 an hour and your spouse isn't in the picture anymore?

You see, very few people struggle to get into and graduate from Harvard so that they can then be forced to have to confront harsh unpleasant realities or inequities. A world in which people buy $1.2 million homes is far more pleasant than one where people live hand to mouth their entire lives, especially if you're one of the people in a $1.2 million home.

Much of that avoidance, I suspect, comes from the subconscious realization that there is no way to make the following statement without wanting to smack yourself: "I studied English at Harvard. And when Harvard lined up that paid internship for me at that major publishing house, I was the one who got myself to work every day (unlike the rest of the people in the world, who are carried into work by their valets) until another Harvard graduate could line up a job for me. I've paid my dues."






Sure, some people who came out of Harvard scrimped and scraped and went through a lot of privation, but in reality, how many of the Harvardians at the Times came up dirt poor from nothing? And how much do you want to bet that they are the ones who are writing the pieces that actually matter?






My suspicion is that a significant number of the Harvardians at the Times came from families that could afford not only Harvard but all the small things that helped lead to Harvard: music lessons, trips to cultural spots, lots of books, quite for studying, enough room to study in peace, enough food, medical care, dental care, eye exams, appropriate primary and secondary education, stability, etc. Please note that most of those things are not self-generated. They are bonuses you obtain by dint of having been born lucky.






If the Times started letting in "them" (you know, the state school graduates, or even, God Forbid, a Yale graduate), conflict would arise. Too many of the State riff-raff would be forced after a while to say, "Yeah, we're fighting two wars, the ice caps are melting, millions of people have no health care, childhood obesity is increasing, and a large chunk of the manufacturing sector has relocated to outside the country, effectively wiping out the middle class, and you're telling us -- in a series of columns -- about the dog you bought from a breeder? And, dear God help us all, how many people had to think this was a good idea before it got this far in the editorial process? If you don't have anything of genuine value to contribute, couldn't you, well, at least stay out of the way and let the rest of us do something useful?"






And once that happened, it would be like the day the mayor's kid figures out that he won all those events at the Fourth of July picnics the day his father got elected mayor. It's kind of hard to enjoy the trophies once you realize that. Unless you are really good at kidding yourself about what "you" accomplished.






Does that answer your question?"

Yesterday, on our way to school, my four-year-old commented, "When you love somebody, it can't be unloved. That's 'irreversible change'." What a sweet sentiment (don't we all wish this were 100% true?)

The Kindle Conundrum, being An Urgent Appeal to Jeff Bezos of Amazon Kindle and the CEOs of nook and the SONY Reader (and all ereader manufacturers worldwide) !

Dear Jeff,

Since we do not yet know how the brain "reads" text on screens, compared to how it reads text on paper, and since there are major concerns among academics and neuroscientists that reading off screens (called "screening" now) may be inferior to reading on paper surfaces -- inferior only in terms of processing of the information, retention of it, and analysis of it, what used to be called critical thinking in cultures were it existed -- I am appealing to you to set up a neutral research fund that would enable vital and important MRI and PET scan research studies to be carried out by experts in the field on the neuroscience of reading on paper compared to screening.

There is some suspicion and worry and concer, Jeff, mostly anecdotal so far, that reading off screens, er, screening is in fact inferior to reading on paper and that under the circumstances only hard science and research by neuroscientists and others can get to the bottom of this very important issue. Not so much for the bottom line of your companies, but for the future of civilization.

Yes, "the tech train has already left the station", as Dr Gary Small of UCLA told the Los Angeles Times recently, "and it cannot be stopped." But at the same time, Jeff, I, Danny Bloom -- blogger, writer, thinker --hereby call on you guys in the e-reader industry to set up a research fund to carry out proper research on all this. Can do?

Please do.

webposted from my cave in Taiwan on August 1, 2010

Danny E. Bloom
=============
co·nun·drum 





a : a question or problem having only a conjectural answer

 b : an intricate and difficult problem

THE KINDLE CONUNDRUM: An Urgent Appeal to Jeff Bezos of Amazon Kindle and the CEOs of nook and the SONY Reader (and all ereader manufactureres worldwide) !

Dear Jeff,

Since we do not yet know how the brain "reads" text on screens, compared to how it reads text on paper, and since there are major concerns among academics and neuroscientists that reading off screens (called "screening" now) may be inferior to reading on paper surfaces -- inferior only in terms of processing of the information, retention of it, and analysis of it, what used to be called critical thinking in cultures were it existed -- I am appealing to you to set up a neutral research fund that would enable vital and important MRI and PET scan research studies to be carried out by experts in the field on the neuroscience of reading on paper compared to screening.

There is some suspicion and worry and concer, Jeff, mostly anecdotal so far, that reading off screens, er, screening is in fact inferior to reading on paper and that under the circumstances only hard science and research by neuroscientists and others can get to the bottom of this very important issue. Not so much for the bottom line of your companies, but for the future of civilization.

Yes, "the tech train has already left the station", as Dr Gary Small of UCLA told the Los Angeles Times recently, "and it cannot be stopped." But at the same time, Jeff, I, Danny Bloom -- blogger, writer, thinker --hereby call on you guys in the e-reader industry to set up a research fund to carry out proper research on all this. Can do?

Please do.

webposted from my cave in Taiwan on August 1, 2010

Danny E. Bloom

Can you believe it? No "frankenbooks" [Kindles or nooks] Allowed in a New York coffee shop from noon to 3 pm? Nick Bilton has the details....shocking! What's next? No coffee allowed? Sheesh!

In a story hedlined "No E-Books Allowed in This Establishment"...
NICKY BILTON of The New York Times writes:

A sandwich shop in Brooklyn has rules on computer use.

A few weeks ago I decided to go over to a local Manhattan coffee shop for an afternoon coffee. Right?

After placing my order I sat down at a table and pulled out my Amazon Kindle. It could have been a nook or a SONY Reader. Any device reader for that matter. Does not make any noise. So.....

I barely made it a sentence into the frankenbook that I was reading before an employee of the coffee shop came by, stood over me and said, “Excuse me Nick, but we don’t allow [computers] in the coffee shop.”

I looked up at him with an incredulous look and replied, “This isn’t a [computer], it’s frankenbook.”

He then told me that the “device” in my hand had a screen and required batteries, so it was obviously “some variation of a computer.” The coffee shop, I was told, did not allow the use of computers.

Annoyed with this distinction, I peppered the employee with questions on why reading on paper was more acceptable than reading on a screen. Flustered and confused by the existential debate he had been dragged into, the employee resolutely said, “Look, no computers in the coffee shop.”

I was dragged into a similar dispute at a sandwich shop in Brooklyn, this time while reading and taking notes on my iPad. The employee there said no computers were allowed between noon and 3 p.m. After another lengthy defense of e-readers and screens, I lost, again, and sat there resentfully picking at my sandwich.

I wonder if people went through the same thing in the mid-1400s as they sat in coffee shops with their pesky paper books? I can imagine a coffee shop owner demanding that a patron remove his book from an establishment that only allowed spoken communication.

And how long will it take before frankenbooks are accepted as equals with their paper counterparts?

The answer to that question might come sooner than we think.

A report last week by the Center for the Digital Future at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California found that people were quickly moving away from print in favor of digital offerings (although the reports noted that readers don’t entirely trust digital news yet).

On Monday, Ian Freed, Amazon’s vice president for digital, CLAIMED IN A PR BULLSHIT HYPE STATEMENT to CNet that the number of e-books Amazon sold in the first quarter of 2010 had gone up a bit compared to a year earlier.

Amazon also recently CLAIMED IN ANOTHER FAKE PR BID FOR MARKETSHARE that e-books have been outselling hamburgers AND HOT DOGS for several months. And Apple said in early April that iPad owners were downloading hundreds of thousands of frankenbooks from the iFrankenBookstore.

So what about that coffee shop that won’t let me read a book on a screen? Even though I don’t agree with the shop’s logic and its distinctions between pixels and paper, I can appreciate a place hoping to offer an escape from computers and the Web.

But as e-books continue to thrive and grow and more people, including students, replace their paper products with digital versions, these coffee and sandwich shops might not have much of a choice but to accept that some people now read books on screens — even if they do look like computers.


25 Readers' Comments, among them DANNY BLOOM's Comment Here:

This is an amazing story, Nick, and well-written. Although I am one of those people who believe that paper reading is superior to screening, my new word for reading on screens, I can't believe that a coffee shop would ban Kindles or nooks or other device readers! That is insane! I am sure your anecdote will get massive play around the world, both pro and con. But let me say I vote with you on this: coffeeshops can ban boom boxes and loud cellhone chats that go on for an hour, but to ban ebooks and ereaders and even netbooks and notebook computers, wow, that is going over-screen, er, overboard. It's still a free country, no? Wowsers.


That said, readers might like to see a recent interview I did with a major tech site about the need for MRI or PET scan research to determine the neuroscience of reading on paper compared to reading off screens, er, screening. Here:


http://green.blorge.com/2010/07/will-mris-help-us-determine-if-paper-reading-is-better-than-electronic-reading/



And here is my video oped, just two minutes, saying the same thing in just

120 seconds, live from my cave in Taiwan:


Bloom's 2-MINUTE READING vs. SCREENING VIDEO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpN78-cJP0

"On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog!"

1993 New Yorker cartoon

Brian Eno is very wrong here: he says "I notice that almost all of us have not thought about the chaos that would ensue if the Net collapsed."

Brian Eno is very wrong here: he says

"I notice that almost all of us have not thought about the chaos that would ensue if the Net collapsed."

No, Brian, there would be no chaos. We do not need the Internet. It is a mere cosmetic distraction. We did fine with talking, writing and reading. No, if the Net collpased, it would be fine. You are wrong, sir.

Climate chaos will glacially put an end to the human species in 500 years, unless we wake up soon....

Andy, more than the 20th Century ended on Friday when the US Congress said no to climate bills. The fate of all humankind as a functioning species was sealed as well. It's all over. Some will survive. But of the 25 billion people alive in 2500 AD, 99 percent will perish in a massive die off as climate chaos pushes the human species to the ropes, as Lovelock teaches us. Now, Andy, and I know I sound like a lunatic here, always repeating my polar cities mantra, but really, when will people wake up. It's over. We need now to start planning adaptation strategies, among them polar cities, er polar settlements, polar villages, in the northern regions of the world and in NZ and Tasmania as well. Although nobody takes me seriously, and that's okay, par for the course, comes with territory, and I don't need approval to go on with my work till die (and my days are numbered as you know, cough cough, heart attack last November, stent now)...one FB reader said "Danny, you have amazing foresight and an iconoclast POV, you may be right....", so I am soldiering on as James Lovelock's Accidental Student until one print media outlet decides to do a real story about future polar cities and interview me. I am not prediciting the future. I cannot see the future. I am saying, and have been saying for 3 years, that we as a humanity -- O the humanity! -- are not going to get it together or come together on climate change and it is already too late, and that we need to start actively exploring the A-word, Adaption, for future survivors of AGW and climate chaos. It is all but in the cards now. As of last Friday, the fate of the human species was sealed. Okay, don't believe me. It's not a comfortable meme to follow. But if anyone wants to follow me, here I am and I am avail for media interviews, pro and con. Go ahead, mock me; go ahead, diss me. I know of what I speak. Ask Lovelock if you need a PHD:

http://pcillu101.blogspot.com
Recommend Recommended by 12,345 Readers

"The Invisible Gorilla"

In 2004 Dan Simons and Christopher Chabris received the Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology "for demonstrating that when people pay close attention to something, it's all too easy to overlook anything else -- even a woman in a gorilla suit." Here they are at the awards ceremony on the left in the front row, [COLD LINK]. Dan and Chris have now co-authored a book entitulated The Invisible Gorilla that was inspired by this experiment and the response to it.

READ: Literary agent jumped at the chance and prepub PR.

The Invisible Gorilla is an unusual name for an unusual book. The authors Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons have assembled a evidence of six illusions that impact our lives in significant ways.

Chapter One deals with the illusion of attention, that is, the illusion that we see or observe far more than we think. Several experiments have proven that even obvious things are easily missed by people. Up to fifty percent of testers failed to see a fake gorilla enter a basketball game where the testers were counting the number of ball passes rather than looking for gorillas. It is from this experiment that the book gets its name.

Most think that such a gorilla would be easily noticed; however, various experiments have shown this is not the case. This lack of ability to see objects that are not expected may explain why cars pull out in front of motorcycles, as it is theorized that people driving cars do not expect to see motorcycles and thus they do not. Cell phone users also miss obvious objects while they are driving. It seems cell phone users that are driving suffer from a reduction in awareness, but they are not aware of it. Thus the illusion that they are as fully aware while talking on the phone as they are when the phone is not in use. The Invisible Gorilla points out how this attention illusion can have real and sometimes harsh results in the real world.

Then the book goes on to describe five other illusions: the illusion of memory, the illusion of knowledge and confidence, the illusion that in a series of events, event one causes event two, and the illusion that certain mythical processes - such as hypnotism - can help one reach their full potential. Another illusion is we can do many things well all at once (multi-tasking); however, experiments have shown this is a false assumption.

The book's key message is that we think our mental abilities and capacities are greater than they really are. Perhaps the largest impact is in court, where witnesses think they can accurately remember an event that occurred some time ago.

I loved this book. It explains so many problems faced in a modern world where information as well as objects are hurled into our lives at breathtaking speed. What is most important is that we stop assuming our minds can process all this whirl without problems. More experiments are necessary to evaluate how our minds work. Understanding our limitations is important to achieving our full potential.

I see by the snailpapers that the digital alarmists like me are wrong.....and that Drs. Chabris and Simons are right! Who knew?

Google is not making us stupid, PowerPoint is not destroying literature, and the Internet is not really changing our brains.
July 25, 2010|By Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons, two PHD dummies


(Page 3 of 3)
For every way the Internet gives us to waste time, there is a way to increase the scope and diversity of our knowledge and to work collectively on problems. It was not long ago that scientists worked mostly within their own laboratories, collaborating only with students and assistants. Today scientists are more likely to collaborate in larger, more diverse teams that often span the globe. With rapid access to diverse information online, ideas, data and resources can be shared faster and on a scale that was impossible at any point in history.

Although the case that technology increases our intelligence is at least as plausible as the gloomy idea that it is changing our brains for the worse, there are real downsides to the instant availability of torrents of information. The danger comes not from the information itself, or from how it could rewire our brains, but from the way we think about our own knowledge and abilities. As the psychologists Leon Rozenblit and Frank Keil discovered, people tend to suffer from an illusion of knowledge: a tendency to mistake surface-level familiarity with deep understanding. As more information becomes readily available, that sense of familiarity grows and grows, and with it the illusion of knowledge. On-demand access to reams of data can also trick us into mistaking knowledge we could obtain quickly for knowledge we already have and can act upon. And if the illusion leads us to neglect the acquisition of true knowledge, we as individuals could become dumber as a result.

Additionally, the more different ways technology gives us to multitask, the more chances we have to succumb to an illusion of attention — the idea that we are paying attention to and processing more information than we really are. Each time we text while we are driving and do not get into an accident, we become more convinced that we can do two (or three or four …) things at once, when in reality almost no one can multitask successfully and we are all at greater risk when we do so. Our capacity to learn, understand and multitask hasn't changed with the onslaught of technology, but our confidence in our own knowledge and abilities have.

So Google is not making us stupid, PowerPoint is not destroying literature, and the Internet is not really changing our brains. But they may well be making us think we're smarter than we really are, and that is a dangerous thing.

Christopher Chabris is a psychology professor at Union College in New York. Daniel Simons is a psychology professor at the University of Illinois. They are the authors of the new book, "The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us." They blog at theinvisiblegorilla.com

Veteran NYC book publisher agrees that we need MRI and PET brain scan tests soon on reading on paper vs reading on screens...

i can tell you his name , if you wish.....DAN


Dear Dan,

Very well said. Your interview idea with Techblorg about MRI or PET scans research ......was an aspect of the digital age that ......I hadn't of thought about, ......however it is just as important-....-or perhaps more--.......than the rest of the self-serving discussions that are going on.

R.


re
http://green.blorge.com/2010/07/will-mris-help-us-determine-if-paper-reading-is-better-than-electronic-reading/

Top NYC publisher agrees that MRI brain scan tests needed to compare paper reading with screen reading!

Dan,

Very good interview. Your ideas about MRI brain scans are an aspect I hadn't of thought about, however it is just as important --or perhaps more-- than the rest of the self-serving discussions that are going on.


re

http://green.blorge.com/2010/07/will-mris-help-us-determine-if-paper-reading-is-better-than-electronic-reading/


=================================================
MY 2-MINUTE READING vs. SCREENING OPED VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpN78-cJP0

How even digitally-literate Nick Bilton makes atomic typo gaffes in his EDGE piece.....

The Internet has killed the private diary hiding under my under
sisters mattress, and replaced it with a blog or social network.

1. under my under?
2. sisters without an apostrophe?

and Nick Bilton calls himself screen literate?

SMILE

If he'd answer my emails he could correct his mistakes but he'd rather
have egg on his face than be a mensch. SMILE

Is screen-reading really reading?

Is screen-reading really reading?

By Dan Eee Bloom

Some observers of this digital age are worried that reading on screens
might not be as good as reading on paper, and they are hoping
that MRI brain scans will be used in the future for research on the issues
involved.

They are concerned that reading on
screens might be not be as good as reading on paper in terms of brain
chemisty, and they want to know the facts, from the standpoint of
neuroscience. Anecdotal evidence no
longer cuts the cake.

Is reading on paper surfaces, the same text, superior, inferior, or
the same, compared to reading the same text on a screen, in terms of
brain chemistry? And which regions of the brain light up in regard to
processing the info, retaining it and critically thinking about it?

Nobody has done this research yet. Gary Small, a top UCLA scientist,
believes it is possible to do this, but that it will be a costly
and expensive undertaking.

Doing MRI brain scan research on lab volunteers reading on paper
compared to others reading on screens (Kindles or Nooks or iPhones or
computer screens) will be certainly be expensive. But institutions like UCLA,
Harvard, Princeton and Tufts and other major universities in Europe,
Taiwan and Japan will be able to carry out this research over the next
few years.

Scholars like Anne Mangen in Norway, Maryanne Wolf at
Tufts, Oliver Sacks at Columbia and Gary Small at UCLA are aware of
these issues and will likely be at the forefront of the research. It
might take five years, it might ten years, but the studies and
academic papers will come out.

No one knows for sure what the research will say. The MRI studies might show
the reading on paper is superior to reading on screens, or they might
say the opposite. Or they might say there is no real difference. But
we need to find out with neuroscience, not just anecdotal evidence.

So far, there has not been even one academic paper published about MRI
brain scan studies on this topic. However, several top people in the
field have said that such research is imperative and that it will
happen sooner or later.

Using MRI brain scans is one method, but using PET brain
scans would also do the trick. Research by academics and
neuroscientists worldwide on how the brain "does" reading -- both on
screens and on paper surfaces -- is just getting underway now.

Let's say that huge differences are seen between
reading a book on paper compared to reading the same book on a screen.
Will it mean anything?

If the differences are huge, it will mean something, for sure. If the
differences are very slight, maybe it will not mean much. And if there
are no differences, then there's nothing to worry about.

If it turns out that
screening reading is superior to paper reading, then that will be important to
know, too.

However, as Dr Small at UCLA recently told a reporter for the Los
Angeles Times: "People tend to ask whether this is good or bad," Small
said. "My response is that the tech train is out of the station, and
it’s impossible to stop.”

He was referring to an earlier note that online readers often
demonstrate what he calls "continuous partial attention" as they click
from one link to the next. The risk is that we become mindless ants
following endless crumbs of digital data, Small indicated. But his
final note that the tech train is already out of the station and
cannot be stopped is telling.

It is highly likely that ereader manufacturers and the entire computer
industry will pay little attention to whatever findings come out. If
the findings back the superiority of reading off screens, they will
rejoice and help to publish the results. If the findings say that
reading on paper and reading off screens is more or less the same, in
terms of brain chemistry and reception, then they will also rejoice.
But if the findings come back that paper reading is superior to screen
reading, it won’t make a difference to the e-reader industry.

A veteran observer of the digital age recently wrote: "Just as dire warnings about cancer and radiation from excessive
cellphone use have more or less gone unheeded, the same thing will
happen with the results of the MRI tests on paper reading versus
screen reading. It’s too late to do anything about it. The reading
devices are already out there in the marketplace and in the schools. I
don’t think a few warnings will change a thing. It didn’t stop the
cellphone industry. It won’t stop the e-reader makers. It’s a billion
dollar industry, and it’s getting hotter every day."



--
MY 2-MINUTE READING vs. SCREENING VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpN78-cJP0

Will print newspapers survive in the Digital Age?

Is screen-reading really reading? People want to know

by Daniel Halevi Bloom

I am worried that reading on screens
might not be as good as reading on paper, this is why I am hoping
that MRI brain scans will be used in the future to research the issues
involved.

I am calling for this research because I am concerned that reading on
screens might be not be as good as reading on paper in terms of brain
chemisty, and I want to know the facts, from the standpoint of
neuroscience. And if I am wrong about my hunch that paper reading is
superior to screening, then I will adjust my thinking accordingly. I
want to see the facts, presented by experts. Anecdotal evidence no
longer cuts the cake. We need facts.

Is reading on paper surfaces, the same text, superior, inferior, or
the same, compared to reading the same text on a screen, in terms of
brain chemistry and which regions of the brain light up in regard to
processing the info, retaining it and critically thinking about it.

Nobody has done this research yet. Gary Small, a top UCLA scientist,
told me recently that it is possible to do this, but that it is costly
and expensive. He said his team is busy with other things, but that he
hopes to see the work done soon, too.

Doing MRI brain scan research on lab volunteers reading on paper
compared to others reading on screens (Kindles or Nooks or iPhones or
computer screens) will be expensive. But institutions like UCLA,
Harvard, Princeton and Tufts and other major universities in Europe,
Taiwan and Japan will be able to carry out this research over the next
few years. Scholars like Anne Mangen in Norway, Maryanne Wolf at
Tufts, Oliver Sacks at Columbia and Gary Small at UCLA are aware of
these issues and will likely be at the forefront of the research. It
might take five years, it might ten years, but the studies and
academic papers will come out.

I have no idea what the research will say. The MRI studies might show
the reading on paper is superior to reading on screens, or they might
say the opposite. Or they might say there is no real difference. But
we need to find out with neuroscience, not just anecdotal evidence.

So far, there has not been even one academic paper published about MRI
brain scan studies on this topic. However, several top people in the
field have told me that such research is imperative and that it will
happen sooner or later.

I am only zeroing in on MRIs as a target method but using PET brain
scans would also do the trick. We need research by academics and
neuroscientists worldwide on how the brain "does" reading -- both on
screens and on paper surfaces -- to learn more about these phenomena,
and both PET scans and MRI scans will be useful for the studies.
Research scientists will know better which method fits their mode of
research.

Let's say that huge differences are seen between
reading a book on paper compared to reading the same book on a screen.
Will it mean anything?

If the differences are huge, it will mean something, for sure. If the
differences are very slight, maybe it will not mean much. And if there
are no differences, then we can all relax. And if it turns out that
screening reading is superior to paper reading, then that’s good to
know too. We need to ask neuroscientists to tell us what’s going on.

However, as Dr Small at UCLA recently told a reporter for the Los
Angeles Times: "People tend to ask whether this is good or bad," Small
said. "My response is that the tech train is out of the station, and
it’s impossible to stop.”

He was referring to an earlier note that online readers often
demonstrate what he calls "continuous partial attention" as they click
from one link to the next. The risk is that we become mindless ants
following endless crumbs of digital data, Small indicated. But his
final note that the tech train is already out of the station and
cannot be stopped is telling.

It is highly likely that ereader manufacturers and the entire computer
industry will pay little attention to whatever findings come out. If
the findings back the superiority of reading off screens, they will
rejoice and help to publish the results. If the findings say that
reading on paper and reading off screens is more or less the same, in
terms of brain chemistry and reception, then they will also rejoice.
But if the findings come back that paper reading is superior to screen
reading, it won’t make a difference to the e-reader industry. As a
friend of mine in the industry told me recently:

"Just as dire warnings about cancer and radiation from excessive
cellphone use have more or less gone unheeded, the same thing will
happen with the results of the MRI tests on paper reading versus
screen reading. It’s too late to do anything about it. The reading
devices are already out there in the marketplace and in the schools. I
don’t think a few warnings will change a thing. It didn’t stop the
cellphone industry. It won’t stop the e-reader makers. It’s a billion
dollar industry, and it’s getting hotter every day."



--
MY 2-MINUTE READING vs. SCREENING VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpN78-cJP0

Will newspapers survive the Digital Age?

Is screen-reading really reading? People want to know

by Danny E. Bloom

I am worried that reading on screens
might not be as good as reading on paper, this is why I am hoping
that MRI brain scans will be used in the future to research the issues
involved.

I am calling for this research because I am concerned that reading on
screens might be not be as good as reading on paper in terms of brain
chemisty, and I want to know the facts, from the standpoint of
neuroscience. And if I am wrong about my hunch that paper reading is
superior to screening, then I will adjust my thinking accordingly. I
want to see the facts, presented by experts. Anecdotal evidence no
longer cuts the cake. We need facts.

Is reading on paper surfaces, the same text, superior, inferior, or
the same, compared to reading the same text on a screen, in terms of
brain chemistry and which regions of the brain light up in regard to
processing the info, retaining it and critically thinking about it.

Nobody has done this research yet. Gary Small, a top UCLA scientist,
told me recently that it is possible to do this, but that it is costly
and expensive. He said his team is busy with other things, but that he
hopes to see the work done soon, too.

Doing MRI brain scan research on lab volunteers reading on paper
compared to others reading on screens (Kindles or Nooks or iPhones or
computer screens) will be expensive. But institutions like UCLA,
Harvard, Princeton and Tufts and other major universities in Europe,
Taiwan and Japan will be able to carry out this research over the next
few years. Scholars like Anne Mangen in Norway, Maryanne Wolf at
Tufts, Oliver Sacks at Columbia and Gary Small at UCLA are aware of
these issues and will likely be at the forefront of the research. It
might take five years, it might ten years, but the studies and
academic papers will come out.

I have no idea what the research will say. The MRI studies might show
the reading on paper is superior to reading on screens, or they might
say the opposite. Or they might say there is no real difference. But
we need to find out with neuroscience, not just anecdotal evidence.

So far, there has not been even one academic paper published about MRI
brain scan studies on this topic. However, several top people in the
field have told me that such research is imperative and that it will
happen sooner or later.

I am only zeroing in on MRIs as a target method but using PET brain
scans would also do the trick. We need research by academics and
neuroscientists worldwide on how the brain "does" reading -- both on
screens and on paper surfaces -- to learn more about these phenomena,
and both PET scans and MRI scans will be useful for the studies.
Research scientists will know better which method fits their mode of
research.

Let's say that huge differences are seen between
reading a book on paper compared to reading the same book on a screen.
Will it mean anything?

If the differences are huge, it will mean something, for sure. If the
differences are very slight, maybe it will not mean much. And if there
are no differences, then we can all relax. And if it turns out that
screening reading is superior to paper reading, then that’s good to
know too. We need to ask neuroscientists to tell us what’s going on.

However, as Dr Small at UCLA recently told a reporter for the Los
Angeles Times: "People tend to ask whether this is good or bad," Small
said. "My response is that the tech train is out of the station, and
it’s impossible to stop.”

He was referring to an earlier note that online readers often
demonstrate what he calls "continuous partial attention" as they click
from one link to the next. The risk is that we become mindless ants
following endless crumbs of digital data, Small indicated. But his
final note that the tech train is already out of the station and
cannot be stopped is telling.

It is highly likely that ereader manufacturers and the entire computer
industry will pay little attention to whatever findings come out. If
the findings back the superiority of reading off screens, they will
rejoice and help to publish the results. If the findings say that
reading on paper and reading off screens is more or less the same, in
terms of brain chemistry and reception, then they will also rejoice.
But if the findings come back that paper reading is superior to screen
reading, it won’t make a difference to the e-reader industry. As a
friend of mine in the industry told me recently:

"Just as dire warnings about cancer and radiation from excessive
cellphone use have more or less gone unheeded, the same thing will
happen with the results of the MRI tests on paper reading versus
screen reading. It’s too late to do anything about it. The reading
devices are already out there in the marketplace and in the schools. I
don’t think a few warnings will change a thing. It didn’t stop the
cellphone industry. It won’t stop the e-reader makers. It’s a billion
dollar industry, and it’s getting hotter every day."



--
MY 2-MINUTE READING vs. SCREENING VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpN78-cJP0

Whither the future of newspapers?

Is screen-reading really reading? People want to know

by Dan Bloom

I am worried that reading on screens
might not be as good as reading on paper, this is why I am hoping
that MRI brain scans will be used in the future to research the issues
involved.

I am calling for this research because I am concerned that reading on
screens might be not be as good as reading on paper in terms of brain
chemisty, and I want to know the facts, from the standpoint of
neuroscience. And if I am wrong about my hunch that paper reading is
superior to screening, then I will adjust my thinking accordingly. I
want to see the facts, presented by experts. Anecdotal evidence no
longer cuts the cake. We need facts.

Is reading on paper surfaces, the same text, superior, inferior, or
the same, compared to reading the same text on a screen, in terms of
brain chemistry and which regions of the brain light up in regard to
processing the info, retaining it and critically thinking about it.

Nobody has done this research yet. Gary Small, a top UCLA scientist,
told me recently that it is possible to do this, but that it is costly
and expensive. He said his team is busy with other things, but that he
hopes to see the work done soon, too.

Doing MRI brain scan research on lab volunteers reading on paper
compared to others reading on screens (Kindles or Nooks or iPhones or
computer screens) will be expensive. But institutions like UCLA,
Harvard, Princeton and Tufts and other major universities in Europe,
Taiwan and Japan will be able to carry out this research over the next
few years. Scholars like Anne Mangen in Norway, Maryanne Wolf at
Tufts, Oliver Sacks at Columbia and Gary Small at UCLA are aware of
these issues and will likely be at the forefront of the research. It
might take five years, it might ten years, but the studies and
academic papers will come out.

I have no idea what the research will say. The MRI studies might show
the reading on paper is superior to reading on screens, or they might
say the opposite. Or they might say there is no real difference. But
we need to find out with neuroscience, not just anecdotal evidence.

So far, there has not been even one academic paper published about MRI
brain scan studies on this topic. However, several top people in the
field have told me that such research is imperative and that it will
happen sooner or later.

I am only zeroing in on MRIs as a target method but using PET brain
scans would also do the trick. We need research by academics and
neuroscientists worldwide on how the brain "does" reading -- both on
screens and on paper surfaces -- to learn more about these phenomena,
and both PET scans and MRI scans will be useful for the studies.
Research scientists will know better which method fits their mode of
research.

Let's say that huge differences are seen between
reading a book on paper compared to reading the same book on a screen.
Will it mean anything?

If the differences are huge, it will mean something, for sure. If the
differences are very slight, maybe it will not mean much. And if there
are no differences, then we can all relax. And if it turns out that
screening reading is superior to paper reading, then that’s good to
know too. We need to ask neuroscientists to tell us what’s going on.

However, as Dr Small at UCLA recently told a reporter for the Los
Angeles Times: "People tend to ask whether this is good or bad," Small
said. "My response is that the tech train is out of the station, and
it’s impossible to stop.”

He was referring to an earlier note that online readers often
demonstrate what he calls "continuous partial attention" as they click
from one link to the next. The risk is that we become mindless ants
following endless crumbs of digital data, Small indicated. But his
final note that the tech train is already out of the station and
cannot be stopped is telling.

It is highly likely that ereader manufacturers and the entire computer
industry will pay little attention to whatever findings come out. If
the findings back the superiority of reading off screens, they will
rejoice and help to publish the results. If the findings say that
reading on paper and reading off screens is more or less the same, in
terms of brain chemistry and reception, then they will also rejoice.
But if the findings come back that paper reading is superior to screen
reading, it won’t make a difference to the e-reader industry. As a
friend of mine in the industry told me recently:

"Just as dire warnings about cancer and radiation from excessive
cellphone use have more or less gone unheeded, the same thing will
happen with the results of the MRI tests on paper reading versus
screen reading. It’s too late to do anything about it. The reading
devices are already out there in the marketplace and in the schools. I
don’t think a few warnings will change a thing. It didn’t stop the
cellphone industry. It won’t stop the e-reader makers. It’s a billion
dollar industry, and it’s getting hotter every day."



--
MY 2-MINUTE READING vs. SCREENING VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xpN78-cJP0