X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:26:51 EDT
From:         Tim Weaver <tweaver@HOBBES.KZOO.EDU>
Subject: Re: TV & computers again
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

Valdemar W. Setzer writes:
>
> Tim Weaver writes
>
> > You speak of having no guidelines and constraints as if it were a bad
> >thing.
>
> No, I do not. I just wanted to justify the assertion that the computer
> does not force discipline.
>
Ah, now that I can agree with.

> One of my conjectures is that in the programming activity the computer
> restricts so much the mental space (to that of algorithms and the
> limited syntax of a programming language) that it ends up damaging
> creativity in the broad sense. Designing new algorithms is a partial
> mathematical creativity. Writing a program is perhaps more an activity
> of producing mental associations....."
>
When you limit yourself to the simple writing of the program, I agree
with most of what you said and the points on which we disagree are
sufficiently minor that I don't want to waste bandwidth on them.  However
this is true only if you limit yourself to the writing of the program.
Where creativity and imagination come in is in the problem solving
stage, where you must define the problem and discover a good working
solution.  It's the difference between being a building contractor and
an architect.  One of my favorite problem solving techniques is to
figure out what the rules say, and then ask, what happens when I break
the rules.  Or put more simply, there's more than one way to skin a cat.
In defense of programmers who's job description or time constraints,
don't have the luxury of creative thinking on the job, to them I say
get a hobby (and I believe a great number of them do).

>>The truth is that the machine doesn't have control over us until such
>>time as we voluntarily give it up.
>
>My argument is that in many cases, and depending on the machine, we
>**unconsciously**, that is, "involuntarily" give up. Why should we not
>tell people to avoid such cases?
>
Absolutely we should, but I'm not convinced that the problem is machine
dependent.  I think that, unless taught otherwise, people have a tendency
to give up critical and creative thinking for a 'comfort zone'.  The ideal
lifestyle (at least in the US) is depicted as one where you don't have to
work at anything.  What you wish to avoid is this zombie like state of mind,
not the machine.

> > The solution is always to stay awake, alive and critical  Think about
> >what you are doing.
>
> Exactly, but for that you need to have good knowledge of the problems
> (mainly psychological) caused by machines. This is what I was trying to
> explain. Isn't it evident that some machines may cause more problems than
> others?
>
I guess my problem with your argument stems from my personal experiences.
I don't believe that I behave in the zombie state (who does), I have a
critical mind and I know how to use it.  I don't believe I got to this
state by carefully dodging TV's and computers.  I got here because my
friends and family taught me to think critically about my decisions.

> I am against prohibitions (attention: this applies only to responsible
> adults, not to children!); I am not going to through your TV set into the
> garbage can. I want to give you concepts that will eventually lead to your
> own action in this direction - if you agree with me.  And if you don't agree,
> I would like to know your reasons to perfect or change  mine.
>
On this point I agree, teach the concepts that will allow us to avoid the
traps.  Before I can reply further, I need to look at your concepts.

> >I vigorously object to the concept that the viewer is not able to criticize
> >the television. ... I, for one, tend to remain very critical of what
> >I watch.
>
> If you really can do it, then you are a phenomenon, as I explain below. Maybe
> you have not realized that in general you are not that critical when
> viewing TV, or maybe your conception of "critical" is different than
> mine...
>
I won't deny that I go into the trance state that you described in the
experiment.  I've never had the equipment hooked up to my head.  But I
would argue that I've simply put my mind in a state to absorb information.
I will also agree with you that TV enforces this state of mind more so
than books simply because there's no break in the information being fed.
However, I make my own breaks, commercials are a good place, I also tend
to stop and think when hit with stuff that I know is false, exaggerated or
just plain stupid (half the stuff that MacGyver does would backfire).
The point I make is that this is all material dependent, not medium dependent.
If all you watch are soap-operas and sit-coms.  You're brain will turn to
jelly because there's no 'infomration' there.  Watch discussion shows, c-span,
documentaries, something that requires you to stop and digest the info.  And
take time to stop and digest the info.  If we teach people (start young)
to stop and think about the information that's coming in, they can deal with
TV, as well as apply the same principles to other situations (like classrooms,
I'd like to see the TV experiment performed in the classroom too).

> I repeat my point: the programmer and TV viewer are not conscious of the
> fact that they have "given up control". This is, in my opinion, a strong
> ethical point.
I whole heartedly agree.

On the whole, I think we agree more than we dis-agree on these points.
The underlying messages is: stop and think about what your doing and why
your doing it.

+-----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------+
|Timothy E. Weaver            | Snail: Kalamazoo College  |                |
|Database Programmer/Analyst  |        1200 Academy       | Phone:         |
|email:  tweaver@kzoo.edu     |        Kalamazoo MI 49006 | (616) 383-5656 |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------+
|These are my opinions!!      |   Don't be humble, you're not that great   |
|Mine!    Mine!    Mine!      |                  - Golda Meir (1898-1978)  |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU