Could the internet and new technology possibly help to integrate some of these groups? It is also definitely possible the internet helps stay separate and NOT integrate.

I have a feeling this might have been an odd one time thing. Usually, at least from my experience, when students have any type of free time they will be doing something on their phones. It is funny to see a group of people all siting with each other but none of them are talking to each other. They are all texting, on twitter, etc.

Very interesting that he uses references to technology. Could be possible that sings have actually changed so much things so much but it's kind of came full circle? Or did just the means of socializing change rather than socializing change?

Most credible sources on the internet are still "professionally produced."

There can be problems with "dumbing" things down. If you continue to dumb things down so that everyone can understand it eventually you will make things so simple that there is no critical thinking involved. You need to find a balance between making information accessible to all to a certain extent and allowing for there to be analytical thinking and criticism on the subject.

Is dumbing down something really a bad thing? Simplifying something can be extremely beneficial. When you simplify something you allow more people to understand it and you make it accessible to even more people. The more people that understand a problem the better chance of solving this problem.

Does this lack of longevity really mean anything? It seems like the movement made huge strides. Didn't they accomplish their goals to a certain extent?

Would it be possible for governments to use memes to combat social and political movements? Can the government "regulate" memes if they cause a clear and present danger? Would the world be safer or more dangerous if the government started regulating memes?

Overall I think this is a good thing. However there can be negative consequences. Many times we are amused and entertained by memes for their humor, artwork, etc but not always the message behind them. When using memes for political or social movements we need to make sure that the message behind the meme is something we agree with and not just the overall appeal of the meme.

Overall I think this is a good thing. However there can be negative consequences. Many times we are amused and entertained by memes for their humor, artwork, etc but not always the message behind them. When using memes for political or social movements we need to make sure that the message behind the meme is something we agree with and not just the overall appeal of the meme.

I would disagree that the concept of "God" is of great phsychological appeal. When we talk about the concept of "God" we are more or less talking about the concept of religion. Sure there are certain aspects of religion that are of great phsychological appeal such as the community aspect, everlasting life, etc but most aspects of religion do not have great phsychological appeal such as self restraint, service, selflessness, etc.

This is simply not always true. Faith and reason can go hand in hand. A lot of times they help inform each other. Many times reason helps strengthen faith and faith helps strengthen reason.

It seems silly that we have to make a metaphor for everything. Why must we label it? Why can't it just be what it is without us having to make up metaphors and names for it.

This issue really does just boil down to a lack of diversity. It's sounds pretty simple to say all we need to do to fix this is force diversity. That's a lot easier said than done tough.

I love google but this definitely makes me wonder if they have too much power? They are having a huge impact on the world by deciding what we see and what we don't.

I always thought websites like Facebook and Google were the good guys who were showing us all the information in the world. Part of the appeal of the internet is there's no one filtering what we can and can't see. This is why I am kind of shocked by this. The talk really interesting and eye opening.

I think it's great that he was in it for the justice but I think his emotions got the best of him. If he looked at the situation from a calm and rational perspective he would have probably felt a little more empathy for Sasha.

This is a great point. One could probably argue that this incident caused more harm then good. It must have been somewhat traumatizing for Sasha to have so many people rallying against her at such a young age. We have all probably done stupid things at her age but most of us haven't had a microscope put on them like she did. Also Evan's wife new phone still had her old information.

This is a perfect example of "the mob." People got together via the internet and they decided what was right and wrong. They made up their mind and there was no turning back. They work almost like a judge in a court.

So what does that tell me? I've got to go back now to my three sources and look at what they told me: the one who said the bridge didn't exist, the one who said the bridge wasn't in Hama, and the one guy who said, "Yes, the bridge does exist, but I'm not sure about the water levels."

This would definitely be an example of a "negative effect." Stories can be fabricated and lied about through word of mouth. I would argue that it's just a human problem rather than blaming it on new technology and connection.

Exactly. Computers and new technology aren't changing our perception of truth. Truth is a human trait, computers and new technology is just another platform in which we seek the "truth."

So 60 seconds was how long it took for the physical earthquake to travel. Thirty seconds later news of that earthquake had traveled all around the world, instantly. Everyone in the world, hypothetically, had the potential to know that an earthquake was happening in Managua.

This is unreal. It shows how connected we are today. This is clearly a positive effect of our global connection. I'd be interested in seeing a negative effect from getting information so quick.

"This is, for me, the biggest change — not a switch in rules, but a switch in how I see my role. Professors are at least as bad at estimating how interesting we are as the students are at estimating their ability to focus. Against oppositional models of teaching and learning, both negative—Concentrate, or lose out!—and positive—Let me attract your attention!—I’m coming to see student focus as a collaborative process. It’s me and them working to create a classroom where the students who want to focus have the best shot at it, in a world increasingly hostile to that goal."

I would definitely agree that maybe the main problem here is are the professors captiviating your attention? Maybe the professors can BE the distraction.

I would disagree with this statement. I don't think this is always the case. Sure sometimes multitasking can take away from the task at hand but I don't think it degrades overall efficiency.

This isn't a bad argument but people have to remember distractions aren't always a bad thing. Alot of times they can be a good thing. Some great ideas are born from "distraction." Often times we are distracted by the things that are really important to us. Another thing to consider is sometimes you need to frequently take breaks from a task in order to be totally focused while you are doing the task.