What does being ‘dumb’ mean according to this article?
In this article, being 'dumb' is referred to being ignorant about current affairs that is occurring in one's society or even the world. One is also considered being 'dumb' when one is not sufficiently equipped with minimal general knowledge as well as being indifferent to common economic, geographical and especially historical facts. Being 'dumb' also includes the lack of ability to think critically and logically. This becomes surprising appalling given the level of material wealth and technological facilitation which starkly contrasts the poor intellectual attainments of youths in this generation.
Do you agree with the article’s argument? Give 3 reasons for your answer.
I agree with the argument mentioned in this article.
Firstly, Santayana claims that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" which is true to a large extent. Youths of the present generation are showing indications that they are not at all informed of historical events that have occured in the past. This is indeed worrying because they would be subjected to repeating the same mistakes their forefathers might have committed in the past. Should the youths fail to even recall the exact historical events, it is extremely doubtful that they would be able to extract lessons from the past and apply them to the present. Hence it is highly likely that mistakes from the past would resurface due to the 'dumb' youths' negligence.
Secondly, the authors mentioned that multi-tasking impairs performance in the moment which is a given. This is because one's concentration is being divided into the various assignments at hand and inevitably, the quality of each assignment accomplished will be affected, especially so for learning. Leaning requires a high demand of concentration as it is less flexible and more specialized hence information cannot be diffused almost immediately. There is thus no argument here that multi-tasking adversely affects youths' performance in their daily activities.
Thirdly, the authors state that video games hold benefits for youths in terms of cognitive skills. The nature of engaging in such gaming activities fosters hand-eye coordination, spatial skills, elaborate fantasy narratives and hypotheses testing as well as problem solving. These encourages youths to be adequately honed in such skills albeit being unaware about current affairs. Even so, youths are still labelled as 'dumb'. I believe the label is quite befitting because having general knowledge is the basis of being intellectual. Despite being armed with impressive skills, the lack of common information is comparable to a body without flesh but only a skeleton frame.
I agree with what Afiqah shared. Her definitions are precise and gave me a better understanding about what "dumb" means. It is true that youths should learn from the past, but to a certain extent. We cannot live in the shadow of the past and we should be forward-looking, which means that we should not keep harping on the past (even if they are mistakes).
ReplyDeleteI like her last sentence that sums up the entire fact that without knowledge, "we are comparable to a body without flesh but only a skeleton frame", as quoted from her article~
ReplyDeleteregarding the last paragraph, i don't quite agree as video games can be harmful in some ways as they are usually highly addictive. even if it were to help with the learning, people who enjoyed the quiz are usually due to the entertainment level and fun, thus in a long run, it may be counter-effective. moreover, if addiction occures, over-usage would cause a lost in productive hours which could be put to better use, like reading the actual text itself instead of playing the video games over and over again.
ReplyDeleteYinan, good opposing view there.
ReplyDeletePerhaps in moderation, gaming can be a learning activity. But the emphasis on learning must be there? Instead of too much emphasis on entertainment?