Re: Re: Constructing Meaning from Written Text -Think Aloud

[parispeter2]

It's no doubt true that images take the place of communication, but perhaps even more importantly, images take the place of THINKING. What I mean here is conceptual thinking, of the kind that gave us philosophy and science and is at the basis of Western civilization. If that is undermined, as it is being at the moment, then the West crumbles, as it is at the moment.

[Joshbuckler]

Hmm, as far as thinking goes, I feel that human beings are more resilient than you put forward. I see images as another kind of thought, designed to complement conceptual thinking as well as textual communication and assimilation of information. It's true though, that images can be used as a shortcut to something that might have taken more effort than thinking or reading. And maybe there is a danger that the conclusion will be different or "wrong."

[parispeter2]

But I don't think you can have a conclusion with images, just as you can't have any premisses! Don't get me wrong, I think images play a very important role in any education, and indeed that imagination (mental images) has played a huge role in philosophy and science. But I think there's a huge difference between a highly literate culture and one that is raised on TV and advertising images. With the latter you can't conceptualize, theorize, solve problems etc.

[Joshbuckler]

"I don't think you can have a conclusion with images."

I do. Maybe not to the same level of sophistication as with text, and maybe never independent of text or textual thought, but there is undoubtedly narrative available in images.

[Joshbuckler]

"I think there's a huge difference between a highly literate culture and one that is raised on TV and advertising images. With the latter you can't conceptualize, theorize, solve problems etc."

I see this statement as an unfounded generalization, but I'd also have to generalize in order to refute it. I know that I am literate, because I'm sitting here typing. I know that certain elements of our society are highly literate, because we have rocket scientists and neurosurgeons.

[parispeter2]

On the first point about conclusions) you refute yourself, so I'll leave that there! On the second point, of course present societies include literate people, but are becoming less literate by the hour. I can't say much here: check out the page-long summary of "Amusing ourselves to death" on wikipedia. Better still, read the book, which will only take you a few hours. A few hours better spent than in front of the TV, or even than in front of the YT!

[Joshbuckler]

Hi Peter, I just thought I'd let you know I picked it up at the library today.

[parispeter2]

Great - let me know what you think.

[scoutie111]

Hi Pari & Josh...Just "happened" to find this vid. Dang YouTube pushes some new videos to another page, so I don't see them. Just a quick FYI: # of word in vocab of the average 14 year old in the US in 1950: 25,0000; in 1999: 10,000

[parispeter2]

Thanks scoutie111 - I think you added a zero (!) but that's quite revealing information. Where did you find that?

[semasiologistics]

In cognitive psychology students learn that w/o images 2 represent thought, there is no clear understanding. Yes, we can verbalize and use this part of our brain to explain or just say words. But is this UNDERSTANDING? When a person understands a sentence or phrase, how is this cognitively done? --> images. However to the Parispeter, bonsoir là-haut! I am not sure of what you are implying when you say "as it is at the moment!?"

[parispeter2]

Hmmm I know there is an argument that humans are more attuned to images because they evolved to react to visual stimuli. But even if that's true should we accord any value to "being at home" in this sense? What if surrounding us by images make us dumber? (once again, I can only highly recommend Neil Postman's book).

[Joshbuckler]

Well, first of all, we're always surrounded by images. Every time you open your eyes, and it's daytime, there's an image of something coming at you. So I can't see how that would dull one's faculties. But I think you're arguing that images take the place of communication, and it's the removal of meaningful communication, edged out by "images," that dulls us. Is that correct?

[parispeter2]

Thanks Josh - interesting analysis. I think your remark that most people are more at home with images is no doubt due to the fact that we live in an image-based society (where very few understand how images operate on them!). If you read e.g. Postman's "Amusing ourselves to death" you can see how different things were in the 19th century where even ordinary people were nourished on the great classics (or the Bible at the very least)!

[Joshbuckler]

"I think your remark that most people are more at home with images is no doubt due to the fact that we live in an image-based society (where very few understand how images operate on them!)."

I would actually think it was the other way around. We live in an image-based society due to the fact that people are more at home with images.