Through the Microscope

Clearly Mark Smith loves to immerse himself in the world of the small. He describes his delight in finding so much life in such a small space. He finds it fascinating how we are connected to these "animalcules", humans have a symbiotic relationship with these millions of microscopic organisms living around us and inside us. We need them and they need us. They help our bodies function properly and we basically provide them with a place to live (us).

While a lot of this article was a little too scientific for me to follow, it did spark my imagination. There is a whole world that we are not able to see without a microscope. And for the most part we never give that world a second thought, if any of us think of it at all, and yet without it we would not be able to survive. It makes me wonder...astronomers are always saying how small the Earth is compared to the universe as a whole. There are even theories that our universe is sandwiched between hundreds if not thousands of other universes. That makes us all very small indeed. So in a way it's all relative...we're just as small as all those little animalcules that Smith talks about.

Evolution

Phelan's theory of how we are currently evolving is quite interesting. I was impressed at the amont of scientific evidence that he had to support his idea, all the examples of ancient DNA and how through comparing skeletons from different regions of the Earth one could get a sense of where and when a genetic mutation occurred, if it was a successful mutation and how and where it spread. I've always had the impression that evolution took place over such a long period of time that it would be close to impossible to actually find DNA that was missing some of the traits that humans have today. I distinctly recall my biology teachers repeating that evolution, if mentioned at all given its religious implications, took place over hundreds of thousands of years and that it took all that time to develop even the smallest of changes. In this article it is shown that the evolution of certain traits occurs much faster than I originally thought. Which is pretty cool...=P

"It makes sense that some alleles present in Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world wouldn’t appear in Sub-Saharan Africa, and vice versa; population flow has not yet had time to spread all alleles to all parts of the world. However, it’s hard for many of us not to hear in Lahn’s musings on brain genes the ugly implication that Africans are inferior. But such was not Lahn’s intention, nor was that his finding. It was not even what he was investigating."

This is the part of the article that interested me the most. Because now that Phelan has shown that Lahn's theory has merit scientifically, he now discusses its implications on the morals of our current culture. All through human history there are stories of different peoples and cultures fighting each other to gain equal status. Clearly this value of equality is incredibly important to us, so now to possibly have scientific proof that some races are truly not equal to others because they have yet to receive a certain gene is worrying to me. In reality, these genetic differences are mostly too small to really cause a noticeable difference in how civilized certain races are compared to others, but the fact that they exist gives people the excuse to discriminate. And from humanity's rather dirty history of discrimination, it's fairly safe to say that an unfortunately large amount of people will use any excuse to make themselves seem better than others. So the introduction of scientific proof that these acts of discrimination may actually be based on fact could be disastrous. Perhaps I'm a pessimist but I get this vision of all the progress we've made to try to accept racial differences being undone and because the cause would be scientific people would be more willing to believe it and it would be much harder to get back to a level of acceptance.

But when you take the time to think about this idea that some populations have evolved past others you realize that it's not quite so simple as saying that one population is better than another. Mutations occur in all human races, so while the Europeans might possess a gene that allows them to drink milk into adulthood that Asians don't have completely, I bet you could easily find another gene that the Asians possess that the Europeans don't have yet. Take Africans for example, probably one of the worst cases of physical discrimination in human history, dating back hundreds of years. Because Africans have dark skin they were considered inferior by all the lighter skinned races when in reality their dark skin gives them a huge advantage over any "white" person. "Black" skin was developed through generations of exposure to the African sun, and defensive evolution against the harm that the suns rays can cause to human skin. Melanin is a chemical in the skin that when exposed to a certain amount of sunlight is basically released to protect the body against said amount of sunlight. Basically melanin is what allows humans to tan. You can think of Africans' melanin as being permanent, they don't have to go through the whole tanning process. They have evolved to have permanent sun protection. They don't have to use sun-screen, they don't get sun burns, and they have much less chance of developing skin cancer than any light-skinned person. Isn't it ironic that the reason "Whites" discriminated against "Black" is also what makes them, in a way, "better" than their discriminators?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while, yes, there will be certain traits that a certain race will have that others will not; but it goes both ways, the other races will have traits that that certain race does not. So while it might be scientifically proven that certain populations have evolved beyond others in certain ways, this inequality would be canceled out when you take into consideration that while race A does not possess a certain trait that race B does, race A probably has a different trait that race B doesn't have.

The Art of Blogging

I had never been really that interested in blogs before this class. When I first heard that we had to blog in this class I was like "really....blogging???...puhlease....". My first few blog posts were really monotone and analytical but as I discovered the freedom one can have in writing blogs my posts became more and more casual. I believe that blogging has definitely helped improve my individual "voice" in my writing. I'm writing more and more like how I would discuss a subject out loud in a vocal discussion. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to you, my readers to decide. I'm still not really into blogging on a regular basis but I definitely appreciate it more than I did before. When you add the comments into the experience it's like having a vocal discussion but without anyone interrupting your ideas, which I think is quite nice, because I've never really been able to hold my ground in vocal discussion, usually other people end up talking over me and I don't particularly like to fight over who gets to speak when, so this whole blogging thing is a much less stressful experience for me.

Ethics and Climate Change

Honestly, I found this article hard to follow. I have never been good at understanding the nuances of economics...

John Broome talks a lot about how we should try to focus on how our current lives will effect those of future generations as opposed to focusing on the here and now. While I agree that we should be aware of possible repercussions we might have on our descendants, I'm a believer in the philosophy that if you help the people around you in the present day that the future will be a better place. So if we were to focus on bettering our world in the present day, than the world would be a better place for future generations as well. So I guess I just don't understand why Broome says that we shouldn't focus on the present day, I mean, how else are we supposed to make the future better if we don't make the present day better? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the article...?

Another thing that bothered me was Broome's question, given the choose, would you save a child of the future or a child in the present day? To me this is just not a fair question...its impossible to know what situation this "future child" would be in, so how are you even supposed to chose?? I guess I'd argue that by saving a child in the present day you would indirectly save an entire line of decedents therefore saving one or more future children.

The Human Footprint

John Murlis talks about the futility of buying food with a carbon stamp on it and that in reality half the carbon emissions come from cooking the produce anyway so it's useless to buy these foods. While I believe he is right that money spent to try to make the produce's journey from the farm to the store more "green" is ultimately useless and that that money could be spent better elsewhere, I do take issue with his statement that buying organic produce is also futile. Hate to break it to y'all, but carbon emissions aren't the only thing that's killing the Earth. Yeah global warming gets all the hype so it's understandable that some people only freak out about them and overlook the other factors. But if we were to only focus on global warming and ignore the other pollution problems than it won't matter if the Earth is nice and cool because we'll still be in serious trouble. People sell organic produce because it has no pesticides on it, not because less gas is spent on transporting it. And you might be thinking "Oh, well pesticides are okay...much less worse than global warming..." Well you're wrong. While it hasn't been confirmed yet, it is firmly believed that the use of pesticides is starting to kill off the wrong kind of insects, most importantly bees. Bees populations around the world are dying off with terrifying speed. Why are bees so important you ask? Well, they happen to be the only worldwide pollinators, yeah there are other pollinators in the world but plants are pollinated by bees about 99% of the time. Now take a moment to think about this, how many plants on Earth require pollination to survive? What would happen if all the bees died? All I can say is that you'd better like your wheat products...cause without bees that's about all that would be left...

So it bothered me that Murlis simply dismissed the impact of organic produce. I firmly believe that everyone should buy organic produce, maybe it won't stop global warming but it will save the Earth from an equally devastating fate.

Do I believe I am responsible for global warming? Well that's a complicated answer, yes and no...I do everything that I am aware of and find myself capable to do to be more "green" but I do think that the human race, Americans especially, are responsible for global warming, and as a member of both the aforementioned, I am also responsible. A lot of people think that they can't really help by buying "green" products, or investing in renewable energy cause they think, "I'm only one person what impact can I possibly have? Not to mention it's kind of expensive to go "green"..." And so they do nothing...Think of is as investing in the future of the human race. Yeah maybe you won't be around to see things get really bad, but does that mean that you should sit back and let the next generation deal with it? Everyone should be as "green" as they can, there are billions of people so while you might think that your contribution is too small to even count, in reality every little bit does count, if billions of people each do their "little bit" than the collective effect would be huge. So if you're one of those people that just shrugs off your responsibility to do your part to help get our world out of this mess we've made with excuses like "Well, it doesn't really affect me..." or "I wouldn't make a difference..." or if you simply are too comfortable and lazy to sacrifice a little, than I'm sorry for you. No one is going to force you to help, it's your choice, but just don't be surprised when suddenly all these problems become crises and everyone is pointing his/her finger at you and you'll be thinking "If only I had..." Trust me you don't want to be in that position. We've only got one shot at this so let's make it count.

Just Add Water Questions

1. How on Earth did the teenage punk manage to get control of the whole town?

2. Why is Charlene afraid of the sunlight/light in general? Is it because she's been hiding her indiscretions in the dark for so long that now, metaphorically speaking, she is afraid that the light will show her sins?

3. What kind of father offers to take his son to a whore house?

4. WHAT IS IN THE TIN BOX????

5.Why is Ray still in this backwater town? Why doesn't he just grab the blond girl and get out of there?

6. Why does the grandmother hate her daughter?

Your Own Little World

The article The Reality Tests was really hard to understand for me. I know very little about quantum mechanics other than it presents a theory of how the universe works contradictory to just about every other theory out there. So for the most part this article went over my head, there was a lot of it that I just couldn't follow because I don't possess the scientific background necessary to understand the concepts being discussed.

What I did get for the article was that there is currently a team of physicists who are exploring the idea of reality and what reality truly is. The idea that we create the world we see around us because of our limited ability to perceive true reality while rather frightening to me is really quite interesting. Apparently our human bodies can barely even begin to take in true reality because the way we observe the universe, through our senses, just isn't even remotely precise enough. So how do we tell what true reality is if our minds have to construct our own world because they are incapable of completely understanding the quantum mechanics reality? I don't know about you but this idea has my imagination up and running. This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "in your own little world".

Faustian Economics

Ok so while I agree with the majority of this article there are a couple of parts that bother me. Toward the end of the article Wendell Berry talks about how to recover from our "disease of limitlessness". I wholeheartedly agree with his insight that humanity has this idea that natural resources are entirely limitless. I mean, do you realize that less than 5% of the water on Earth is fresh water?? That's not a lot...AT ALL. Yes, it is true that water does sort of recycle itself so that 5% will always be there but there is also the human factor, we keep growing in numbers, at an exponential rate. So in other words in the next hundred years we're in for some serious water shortages, and I'm not talking about just not having enough water to brush your teeth every night, I'm talking about not having enough water to SURVIVE on. Are there ways to fix this? Short answer: Oh of course, we simply have to cut down our use of water now. Just take shorter and fewer showers and stop using buckets and buckets of water to keep your lawn alive if you live in a desert; I mean come on...if you decided to live in a desert than why on Earth are you surrounding yourself with a lush green lawn after claiming to adore the great natural beauty of the desert? I don't buy it...that water could be much better used elsewhere. Anyway that whole rant right there was an example of how our natural resources are far from limitless, yet for some reason the majority of the Earth's population is intent on believing that it is. Perhaps they simply don't want to think about a problem as huge as this.

But unlike Berry, I don't think that we think of ourselves as "god-like animals", that believe that we can control all we touch. I think that it is more that we just don't CARE. We Americans have yet to experience the limits of our Earth's resources. I would bet good money that if you went to one of the dirt-poor villages in one of the third world African countries you would find people that are experts of water conservation and how to make do with little to no water where as you or I would cringe at the idea. The problem hasn't affected us yet so we do nothing about it.

The main thing that aggravates me about this article is the idea that we need to give up technology and our pursuit of knowledge to fix our problems. While I believe that it is true that technology and the pursuit of knowledge are a big part of the reason that we're draining the Earth dry of all its resources, I also believe that they are essential to help put things right. This problem has gone beyond being fixed by just stopping what we're doing wrong, we need actually fix it. Yeah, it would be easy to just stop making the problem worse but it will still be there, wouldn't it be better to try to get rid of it entirely. It would be harder and maybe we won't see any changes for the better in our generation but at least we can help ensure that there will be generations after our own.

Learning Through Conversation

Right, well first off, was there really no group learning before the 1980s?? I find that difficult to fathom...rows of students each in their own little worlds doing their own little projects. Perhaps it is because I grew up with group learning that it seems absurd that teachers never assigned collaborative projects until about 30 years ago. It just seems odd to me that no one thought of it before then, I mean, working in groups as a child is probably what helped me most in learning to function as a part of society as opposed to a complete independent. I believe that it is necessary for a child to learn how to work with others seeing as how he/she will eventually need to get a job that will most likely require him/her to be able to work smoothly with others such as his/her boss.

So back to the idea of the article, Bruffee talks about the idea of people learning through conversation, in other words, talking ideas over with other people is more beneficial than mulling them over in your own solitary mind. I completely agree with this sentiment. Everyone has different points of view and different values that they live their lives by, and trust me, there is no way that you will ever be able to imagine all these different perspectives all on your own. These other people are necessary for you to be able to progress to stronger and more concrete conclusions. There are certain things that you will not take into consideration when interpreting something, be it literature or science, that other people will.

Discussing everyone's various interpretations

will lead to a better understanding of the subject being discussed for everyone

which will lead to better communication between individuals

which will lead to a better society

which will lead to a better LIFE in general!

so anyways....

Discussing your ideas with others will help you better defend your argument as others with different philosophies than your own will be better equipped to challenge your ideas than yourself. Who knows, through arguing with other people you may find that you agree more with what the other person is saying through his/her counterpoints and examples and through that revelation come to a better understanding of yourself. There is probably some sort of really deep moral that I could write here...but I can't think of it at the moment...so I'm just gonna say, this whole collaborative learning conversation thing...DO IT!

that's all.

kthxbye =)

GREED

When I picture greed, I see a little green monster/goblin, sort of like the Cookie Monster in Seseme Street but evil and it eats money instead of cookies. It would be one of those monsters that lives in the dark corner of your closet that you never want to look into. And it comes out when you least expect it, usually when it's dark out. It's deceptively small. You think that you can control it but if you're not careful it can overpower you in seconds.

Oh, and it's also rather partial to composted tripe...;)

The Fear of Writing

I understand Derrida perfectly. I have always been a creative writer and every now and then I go into these sort of "writing moods" where I have an idea or concept that I just need to get on paper. It doesn't occur to me to wonder what other people might think about what I'm writing while I'm actually writing it; it's only when I finish it and reread it that I start to feel self-conscious about my ideas. And when I get self-conscious I get really self-conscious, I start to second guess everything, which is probably why most of the stuff I've written is currently stuffed in a folder somewhere...

I think people are afraid of putting there written ideas out for the world to see because they won't always be around to defend it. It's a bit of a one-sided conversation; you shout your ideas out to the world, but you won't necessarily get any responses. I guess in a way silence is what we're most afraid of, if what you say starts a conversation at least you'll know that someone was listening as opposed to completely ignoring you.

The Limits of Language

While I'm not really a huge fan of the way The Problem of Describing Trees is written, I do agree with the idea that language has its limits. Robert Hass talks about how words can only go so far when one attempts to describe an experience to someone else. I am very familiar with this concept that language can only do so much. As an actor it's my job to know how to describe abstract concepts like emotions to an audience of people who all may not have the same interpretation of a certain concept. And I can tell you straight up that words don't even cover half of it, movement and facial expression often work better to communicate an idea better than language. Combining the two of course works better than either one alone, but if I had to pick just one it certainly wouldn't be words, I would choose movement. There are many ways to describe how to, for example, peel an orange through language, but the action remains basically the same, so showing someone how to peel an orange visually is more effective than trying to explain it verbally. Sometimes there simply are no words to describe something, you just have to SEE it for yourself, which is probably why people would much rather see a play/movie than read a book, and why people learn faster by watching others or by experiencing thing themselves.

12th Night Quotes

"I am the man." (2.2.25-Viola)

Viola realizes that Olivia, in believing that Viola is a man, has fallen in love with her. At first Viola finds this amusing but then realizes that this could potentially pose a rather large problem. She, being a woman is not capable of loving Olivia back so Viola is not entirely sure what she will do if Olivia decides to pursue her. Of course, this situation adds to the lunacy of the rest of the play, so while Viola becomes worried with this sudden realization that "she is the man" the audience finds it absolutely hilarious.

"and yet to crush it a little, it would bow to me..." (2.5.143-145-Malvolio)

Malvolio has just read a letter that he found. From reading it he can tell that it is a love letter that appears to have been written by Olivia but it is not very clear to whom the letter is addressed to, only the letters M, A, O, and I. Because Malvolio already believes that he, and only he, has what it takes to be master of the house, and because the letters M, A, O, and I are in his name, Malvolio is convinced that the letter is addressed to him. This shows Malvolio's overconfidence in himself which of course will get him into trouble later in the play. Malvolio does not quite understand his station in life. He is a servant which of course means that he is in a lower social class than Olivia which means that Olivia would never even think of him as a suitor.

Viola: Then think you right. I am not what I am.

Olivia: I would you were as I would have you be. (3.1.148-149)

In this scene Viola is trying to get away from Olivia who is starting to show that she has feelings for Viola, who she thinks is a man. Viola is trying to subtly hint to Olivia that she is really not a man and therefore does not have feeling for Olivia. Olivia is frustrated with this "man" who does not seem to be taken in by her charms and answers that she wishes Viola was what she wanted her to be.

So apparently the word "time" occurs in 12th Night 22 times. Most of the references to time use the word as a normal noun, but what I found interesting was that every now and then Shakespeare would use "time" as a proper noun. Viola refers to Time as a sort of entity twice and Orsino once.

"What else may hap to time I will commit;
Only shape thou thy silence to my wit." (Act 1 Sc. 2)-Viola

"O time! thou must untangle this, not I;
It is too hard a knot for me to untie!" (Act 2 Sc. 2)-Viola

"When time hath sow'd a grizzle on thy case?" (Act 5 Sc. 1)-Orsino

When Viola has a problem that she dosen't believe she can solve herself she calls on Time to solve it for her. I thought it was interesting that time was personified this way.

Reflection on 1st Paper

For me, writing the small object/large subject essay was difficult for me. This paper was quite different from the papers I'm used to writing. I'm used to writing book/play analysis papers and creative writing but I've never really had to do a research paper on an actual object...at least not recently. I tried something new in my introduction this time. I usually do a sort of funnel introduction where I start with a very broad topic and change to a very specific topic for my thesis. But this time I tried opening my essay with the "tell a story" technique. I wasn't particularly happy with how it turned out but I'm glad I tried something new for this paper. I didn't find my topic that interesting although I found out some information that I definitely didn't know before that piqued my curiosity and helped drive me to finish the paper. I also didn't have as much time as I would have liked set aside for writing this paper, it seemed like all my professors conspired to overwork me that week, I had three other essays besides this one that have been due at around the same time, so I managed the best I could with what time I had. Overall I was happy with how the paper turned out but I haven't actually seen the grade I received on it yet so that opinion might change...

Inkshedding: Shakespeare Quote

Quote:

Andrew: "In sooth, thou wast in very gracious fooling last night, when thou spok'st of Pigrogromitos, of the Vapians passing the equinoctial of Queubus."

(Act 2 Sc. 3 Lines 20-23)

Andrew is talking to Feste who apparently told a story about Vapians and Pigrogromitos and such the night before. Sir Andrew is not the brightest bulb on the tree and doesn't really realize that while Pigrogromitos, Vapians, and Queubus sound like real astronomical terms they are really just Feste making fun of astronomical unnecessarily long names. When Andrew says "very gracious fooling" he is complimenting Feste on his show of wit last night.

12th Night

After reading the first act of 12th Night, I can't stop thinking about....

Shakespeare must have thought that his audience was capable of great feats of imagination. This play was originally written for the theatre of the 1600s, which means there was not much in the way of costumes and practically no scenery. I can't help but wonder how Shakespeare managed to achieve the effect of a shipwreck on the his audience with no scenery and no sound effects. Yes, I know the whole argument that Shakespeare put clues in certain character's lines to help the audience figure out the setting but honestly, if the majority of modern high school students can't catch these clues after about 10-12 years of education, how on earth did uneducated 17th century people manage it? How did Shakespeare ever keep his audiences interested?

12th Night Act 1

1. How is everyone so fooled into believing Viola is a boy?

2. Why is Orsino so hung up on Olivia? There must be other women in Illyria...

3. If Olivia is really set upon giving up men for 7 years why does she tease Cesario?

4. I can understand why Olivia would be in mourning for her brother, but what does that have to do with her refusal to get involved with any men for 7 years?

5. Do we ever get to know where Viola is from?

6. Where does the word Illyria come from?

To Take Wilderness In Hand

While this article poses a very interesting theory of how to save a species by relocating them to a less dangerous environment for them, at the same time I wonder: What happens to the plant/animal life that lived in this relocation site originally? I commend the effort to save an endangered species but I feel like this relocation idea simply puts the native life in the relocation site in danger of becoming endangered as well. Then one ends up with two endangered species as opposed to one, not to mention the unknown effects of introducing a new species in an area would be.

I’ve heard about the idea of assisting migrations before, and while, again, I think it’s commendable that people are willing to do that, I’m not really sure that we are capable of it. There are hundreds of different species that migrate all over the world. We probably don’t know much about the habits of the more endangered species simply because there aren’t that many of them left to study. Can we really reliably say we have the information necessary to help them with one of the more important parts of their lives? It’s like trying to help your best friend through his/her daily routine when he/she is no longer capable of doing it his/herself. You may think you know them well enough to do it but there will be things you’re going to miss and some of them may be unimportant but others might be vital. And even if we were to succeed we risk the species forming a dependence on us to survive which may not go over so well.

I think we should focus on what our own species can do to minimize its effect on our world. Try to control our emissions and waste, spend more effort on staying “green”. If we did that then most of these problems with other species that stem from our messiness would not exist.

Hi-Tech Trash

To me this article is rather upsetting. I know that most people don’t really think about where what they throw away goes, but the fact that even the people who try to do well by the world by giving their e-waste to charities, that are SUPPOSED to dispose of it in a good way, that are giving their e-waste to the same people as the dumping corporations that are only out for a profit is astounding to me. It just makes the whole situation seem so hopeless. If people really think that in today’s world they can just ship something far away and that it will never come back to haunt them than they really need to wake up. As Carroll states in his article, the countries that end up with all the e-waste just turn around and sell it right back in a different form. So not only are developing countries’ e-waste ruining the people’s lives who live in under-developed countries but it bounces back and risks the original sender’s health as well when they inadvertently buy Chinese made jewelry that contains an unhealthy amount of lead because it was made from the scrapes of e-waste.

The other thing that bothers me about this article is that Carroll doesn’t really give any sort of definite solution to the problem. He does talk about a recycling machine that can safely dispose of e-waste, but he offers not possible solution to how to clean up the mess that has already been made by the dumping of e-waste. This just bothers me, if I was going to write an article for National Geographic than I would at least make a suggestion for how to help, or mention a group that is trying to help clean up or something…

Small Object, Large Subject

Laptop computers have become somewhat of an epidemic. I don’t know anyone who does not own and actively use one. A laptop is the ultimate way to stay connected to the rest of the world. Often people, especially students, consider their laptop to be their prized possession. It is always within easy reach and a lot of people take their laptop with them wherever they go. Perhaps it is the fear of feeling completely isolated that causes people to be so attached to their laptops. The world has become so much smaller. We are used to being able to get in touch with a friend anywhere and at anytime. We always want to be somewhere where we can connect to a wireless network and often feel quite twitchy when we have to put up with being outside any kind of network.

Laptops also make it possible for us to carry our life around with us. They contain our music libraries, our pictures, they give us access to the internet which in turn gives us access to other people’s lives…the list goes on. They also have hundreds of applications designed to make our lives easier and entertain us at all times. We would be lost and bored without our laptops to focus on.

Companies that make laptop computers have noticed how attached we are to our laptops and have exploited this attachment to a point where everyone wants to have the newest, most advanced laptop. They take extra time and money to make laptops look aesthetically pleasing when they don’t really have to be so that more people will want them.

Whether this epidemic of laptops is really a bad thing, I’m not entirely sure. I know I am very attached to my laptop; it’s usually with me all the time and I can’t really picture my life without it. Is this a bad thing? Honestly, I’m not sure.

Response to "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

I can definitely understand what Nicholas Carr is talking about. I believe that it is true that people have lost a lot of their patience and willingness to really look for a certain piece of information. It is so easy now to just plug in a single word into Google and magically get thousands of hits on thousands of different websites. With so much information right in front of us, it would be utterly impossible to read it all and decide which source is the best source so instead people have developed the ability to skim through articles, training themselves to look for certain words. While there are times when this method of searching does work, people using it often miss things, sometimes things that are more important than the key words that they have trained themselves to look for. So people end up only knowing the outer layer, so to speak, of the subject they were searching for and losing any sort of depth they might have gained by reading the entire article. As a result of this skimming technique, people’s attention spans have decreased drastically to such a point as that the average person would probably spent no longer than five minutes on any one activity before getting bored and moving on. People get uninterested so much faster than anyone would have fifty years ago, and in a way this has caused us to become stupider as Carr suggests. It is true that because people move from topic to topic so quickly it is much more likely that they will know information on a huge variety of subjects, but it is also because of this loss of attention that it becomes rarer and rarer to find anyone who is a specialist on one topic or a group of related topics. Everyone can come up with the same couple of facts on any given subject, but no one has any depth of understanding of said subject. People can no longer focus on any one thing for a long period of time. No one has the patience to sit and read or listen to gain any sort of depth in a subject, the ability to focus has become very rare.