Postman Chapters 7-9 Discussion

Before I sat down to read chapter 7, I considered the fact that maybe I’ve been too hard on Postman and have a skewed view being that I am an information management instructor, and my career depends largely on technology, and the methods for managing information that we currently have in place. So, I cleared my mind and decided to take a “fresh” look beginning with chapter 7 to attempt to respond to this book in an objective matter, and then realized I had fallen into the trap of Technopoly since it call for complete objectivity in all matters, so I tossed that aside and just dove right in.

I feel as if this book is like a train wreck, and almost infuriates me, which is why I cannot stop reading. With all that we know now (information); I cannot believe that Postman can have such an obtuse and narrow-minded opinion of technology and the good that can come from it. I feel that chapter 6 really started the downturn of the book and destroyed Postman’s credibility when he attacked medical technology and the invention of the stethoscope, which I laughed with my doctor about yesterday when taking my son for a check-up. I consider my doctor to be one of the best, and he does spend a great amount of time with us as patients and is very inquisitive and empathetic….but he does use a stethoscope, so, I don’t know how “good” he is. I’m not sure if you can sense the sarcasm….

Chapter 7 is another chapter that reminds me of the previous chapter in that Postman completely disproves himself several times in exploiting the computer for its’ inherent evil. One of the most ridiculous ways that Postman supports his arguments against computers is that he refers to computers as having human characteristics. On page 119, he states that, “The computer argues, to put it baldly,…. ,” which, I was not aware that a computer can argue. He then says on page 114, “If a computer calculates, then it may decide to miscalculate, or not calculate at all.” Decide? The last time I checked a computer can only perform the tasks that we ask it to do. Postman then contradicts himself on page 118 when he says, “The computer is almost all process.” I honestly do not understand how a self-described intelligent person such as Postman can be so contradictive yet so passionate about this subject. I really do think he may have a complex and real fear that computers are going to take over the world.

Among the evils of computers, Postman says on page 118 that we have experienced a loss in human judgment and subjectivity because we as a Technopoly have decided that we can trust computers to act as our surrogates and have lost the capacity to value anything that is not based purely on science and technology, which simply is not true. We are once again fenced in by Postman’s notion that everyone living in America is a raving technophile and cannot think or act without consulting technology in some way. Of course as we read through the book and pay attention to Postman’s claims and arguments, there is such an unevenness and broken pattern of thought, that it makes it difficult for the reader to give more thought to Postman’s claims, and Chapter 7 is the most ridiculous of his writing thus far.

Postman’s next chapter on Invisible Technologies where he describes language as a technology with a hidden agenda that can be utilized to deliver whichever message the sender intends for it to portray, even if the listener is unaware. This chapter would probably be the one where I can find the most agreement with Postman, as an education professional. As I tend to prescribe to the constructivist theory of education and focus on relevant lessons, the idea of standardized testing and IQ stores holds little weight with me or my judgments. I agree that questions cannot be unbiased, and by scoring students with very individual learning mechanisms and experiences alongside every other student, we are unfairly judging the capacity of the student to achieve. Students should be measured according to their ability to apply knowledge to relevant situations that affect them, and the efficiency in which they are able to complete said tasks, which may be different depending on the student. Granted, this means a LOT more work for the instructor, but if they are interested in truly meeting the needs of the student, this is not such a stretch.

Again, Postman speaks to me by saying that beauty is relative, and I could not agree more (of course). But in all seriousness, the development of a ranking system has somewhat “boxed us in” in regards to the method in which we judge and make decisions. Granted, ranking does have its purposes, and definitely is appropriate in many situations. However, when you are ranking something that is subjective, such as beauty, intelligence, or experiences and opinions, ranking can be devastating to the actual results, and to the person that they affect.

The last chapter, Scientism, is probably the weakest thus far in content and argument. The chapter basically is a history lesson in scientific discoveries and inventions, so it was not an easy read. However, he does discredit the social sciences, which I also do not necessarily agree with. There is definitely something to be said in the validity of statistics, and it’s true that numbers can be manipulated in many ways to prove or disprove almost anything. One cannot dispute, though, the strong trends and data that have been gathered regarding cultural trends and inclinations that assist in predicting changes and patterns in specific data about a culture or group of people, in this case, even a Technopoly.

Postman spends a great deal of time in Chapter 9 stating the obvious that social science cannot provide guidance and definite answers to many of our driving questions and life’s answers to our much debated questions like creativity, religion, morality, etc.. Postman also spends several pages speaking to the “pure” sciences that are in his own words a characteristic of a Technopoly and the only thing that those residing in the Technopoly put any faith into. With his purely pessimistic views, Postman attacks scientists as well in that those who study are not entirely aware of what they are researching and the implications of the information that they find out. Of course, the technology used to study scientific theories and hypotheses is regarded by Postman as an evil, which has provided part of the information glut that we currently experience living in this Technopoly.

At this point in the book, Postman seems to be on a repetitive “kick,” where he is attempting to grasp at straws and any historical data possible that may prove his point, or many times disproves or disputes the claims he has previously made. My biggest issue with this reading section is definitely chapter 7 where Postman humanizes computers, and argues that they have us under their control and we don’t even know it. He contradicts himself so many times in this chapter by assuming that computer have human behaviors and capacities, which is not true, and will never be in our lifetime, and I doubt, ever. It is quite a shock to me that as intelligent as Postman considers himself to be, that he even believes half of the “blather” he is writing.