From knowledge to knowledgeable:

With the rise of technology, learning has moved from memorization and information
recollection to being able to find, sort, analyze, share, discuss, critique and create
info.
The way older classrooms are setup shows the gap of learning style from the past to
the age of tech. in the past knowledge was only gained from a teacher, professor, or
someone in high authority that was trusted and this knowledge could only be
obtainted from the classroom or lecture area. In todays tech society knowledge is
easily accessible from virtually anywhere and most information is easily discovered
and relayed to others. Along with this our connection through tech allows us to
discuss and evaluate information with people from across the world.
Info used to be a physical and material concept. Now with tech info has no shape or
defined material/substance, it is always changing.
With tech info can be found through serach engines, youtube, blogs, etc.
But not all of this information is reliable and you must know how to read and asses
information to determine if it is reliable and relevant to your topic of research or
inquiry.
Netvibes and diigo can prove to be a very usefull tool for research purposes and just
for finding out about things that interest you.
Knowledge should be about ones perspective and insight on a subject, not someone
elses determination of what is true or the correct way to see a subject.
Learning is more than just remembering informtatoin. It is processing this
information from your perspective and giving it meaning and understanding it
through your experiences and thoughts/ideas.
When learning something you shouldnt end with just answers. You should obtain
answers and have yet more questions to raise and learn about and more questions
from those, going in a continuous process.
Is Google Making Us Stupid?:
The argument here is that this new form of learning through instantly accessible
info changes the way people think about and process information. Before the web
information was difficult to find and wasnt easily accessible, so you spent large
amounts of time finding and learning about your subject. In todays tech world you
can find information quickly and easily, so the argument here is that this new source
of easy to find info has made us to where we skim the surface of subjects just
because of the vast amount of information out there and the seemingly effortless
access we have to it. It has conditioned us to want to take in information as quickly
as we can find it, without really processing and understanding it. Kinda
inmportant senctence here bro.
New research show we may be changing the way we read and think due to how we
access info in todays world. (I relate this to adaptation to your environment and

optimizing the usage of your environment and the tools available to you)
Important
I feel that the reason we skim and scan on the web is because there is so much info
and each article or site can have pertinent info but not all parts of that site have the
info you want to learn about or deem important, but together those scraps of gold
that you find in each site come to make a better learning or research experience
when knowledge from multiple sources is combined. Essentially I am saying that
since we have so much info accessable to us so quickly, we can quickly look though
all of it and pull out the aspects of a paper, blog, etc into a combination of
gathered info.
Each site brings its own understanding of a subject due to the differing perspectives
of each user or source of information. When combined these multiple perspectives
can come together to form a greater understanding of a subject. Ex. 3 sites speak of
The war in the holocaust and its effect on citizens. All sites focus on this subject.
The first site comes from the view of how people reacted to certain stages of the
war and crimes, actions, and other things committed throughut it. The second site
covers this info, but focuses more on why these people reacted the way they did.
Focusing on reason of results of societal pressure, socital standards, individual
circumstances, religious aspects, etc. and the third site focuses on why people
reacted to things the way they did but is more heavily reliant on explaining the view
of these actions and reaction through an inside out to an outside in view.
in conclusion, all 3 sites talk about the same subject and may cover the same
material, but all three come from a different view point or perspective focusing
more on different things, so you can take the info on crimes actions and etc
mentioned in site 1 and apply it to the info on societal pressure, standards,
individual circumstances etc and also tie all of that with site 3 with the info of all
of this based on both inside and outside viewpoints.
Although all 3 sites included the same info, each unique perspective and focus
added to the understanding of the information as a whole enabling you to piece
together all of these view points into something that is a combination of all 3, where
the weak points of one source are replaced with the strong points of another.
Probably the clearest thought Ive had all day.
this papers argument seems to be that we are more reliant on efficieny and
decoding the text. Which Is true. But how is it better or worse than how we
learned before? It is simply a different way of understanding and processing
information.
Our generation seems to be more hard pressed on absorbing all the info we can in a
short amount of time and moving on to the next subject or just hardlining for the
information we wish to find and moving on, not taking time to read the entirty of a
paper. I believe this is more efficient but there will always be others who disagree.
Excerpt:

He feared that, as people came to rely on the written word as a substitute for the
knowledge they used to carry inside their heads, they would, in the words of one of
the dialogues characters, cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful.
And because they would be able to receive a quantity of information without
proper instruction, they would be thought very knowledgeable when they are for
the most part quite ignorant. They would be filled with the conceit of wisdom
instead of real wisdom. Socrates wasnt wrongthe new technology did often have
the effects he fearedbut he was shortsighted. He couldnt foresee the many ways
that writing and reading would serve to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and
expand human knowledge (if not wisdom).
I agree I will have beautiful ideas and realizations, but if I do not write them down
they will quickly be forgotten. I have the wisest of thoughts and ideas written down
in all of my tech, but without it all of this wisdom for me, would disappear, I cant
seem to recall all of it without having to rely on my tech to store those thoughts,
ideas , or memories for me.
Excerpt:
Deep reading, as Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking.
Im haunted by that scene in 2001. What makes it so poignant, and so weird, is the
computers emotional response to the disassembly of its mind: its despair as one
circuit after another goes dark, its childlike pleading with the astronautI can feel
it. I can feel it. Im afraidand its final reversion to what can only be called a state
of innocence. HALs outpouring of feeling contrasts with the emotionlessness that
characterizes the human figures in the film, who go about their business with an
almost robotic efficiency. Their thoughts and actions feel scripted, as if theyre
following the steps of an algorithm. In the world of 2001, people have become so
machinelike that the most human character turns out to be a machine. Thats the
essence of Kubricks dark prophecy: as we come to rely on computers to mediate
our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial
intelligence.