Introduction
Information technology and the internet have a profound impact on the life and thinking of a modern man. Researchers face a decision themselves, which, in its simplest form, is whether to teach decision-making as best researchers’ know-how, or not to teach it. The article “How Facebook Ruins Friendships” discusses the impact of the Internet on communication and interaction between people. The consequences of not teaching it are that individuals go on making decisions as they have done. Science, civics, and history appear to be the most natural host courses. Given institutional realities, intimate integration into an existing curriculum is probably easier to implement than the insertion of a separable module. The article “How Computers Change the Way We Think’” portrays changes in cognitive processes and skills of computer users. The article states that the consequences of teaching are that individuals change toward what researchers think are better ways of making decisions (with some probability, of course, since researchers cannot be sure that our teaching will have an effect). The fact that one of these outcomes is the status quo should not in itself determine our decision. The research articles, “How Facebook Ruins Friendships” and “How Computers Change the Way We Think’” vividly portray the negative and hazardous impact of computers on the cognitive processes of an ordinary individual. Thesis Computer technology makes us robots who are unable to think and accept rational decisions by themselves.
Analysis
In the research, Turcle portrays that insufficient search is overcome by the very idea of formal analysis. For this purpose, it does not much matter what sort of formal analysis is done. Any such analysis slows down the process of decision-making, allowing reasons to affect the decision that might not have done so if the decisions researchers made impulsively. Also, cognitive processes may help focus attention where the search is needed: different sorts of evidence are relevant in thinking about utilities of outcomes and probabilities of events, and a conflict of two goals can lead to the search for a new option that satisfies both goals. The examples of logos in the article are when the author speaks about: “computational objects that have become more explicitly designed to have emotional and cognitive effects; the paragraph about Erik Erikson and his contribution, and the regular curriculum for K-12 education” (Turkle). The importance of these examples is that they help to overcome bias by the idea that formal analysis is most useful if it avoids tinkering to force a pre-decided by critics. If it is to be a real “second opinion,” the first opinion must be put aside. Again, it does not matter much what sort of analysis is done, provided this stance is taken. Singlemindedness ought to be reduced by increasing search and by fairness to opinions other than the first. Additional stress on the search for goals may also be required. The example of pathos is when Turkle speaks about the first computers: “The people who built or bought the first generation of personal computers understood them down to the bits and bytes” (Turkle 4). Bernstein proposes readers expressive evidence that the Internet chat rooms and networks The sunk-cost effect is counteracted by a particular feature of communication, the fact that it is future-oriented. It analyzes the effects of decisions on future outcomes and puts aside the past because the past cannot be affected by our decisions. One of the main effects of formal training (as distinct from any training in decision making) should therefore be to reduce the sunk-cost effect. Similarly, the emphasis on future consequences will reduce blind obedience to precedent. Finally, attention to future consequences will obviate the distinction between omission and commission. The endowment and framing effects may be avoided by the adoption of an impersonal perspective when assessing utility. For example, a violation of the law may be harmless in a given case, but it may make future violations (by the violator and others) more likely, and these may not be so harmless. The examples of logos are:” Facebook prolongs the period it takes to get over someone; instantly share news of his medical progress; When it comes to relationships, such online revelations can make breaking up even harder to do” (Bernsteain). These examples show that our initial impulses are governed by goals that seem less important on reflection, such as avoidance of embarrassment or the desire to maintain the belief that one’s past decisions researchers made. Avoidance of negative emotions–such as those produced by saying “no” to a request–may also influence decisions in a way that would not stand up to the kind of reflective examination required in cognition. The pathos is when the author speaks about the nature of Facebook: “Facebook can also be a mecca for passive-aggressive behavior” (Bernstein). That is, the quality of the product of decision-making depends on the quality of the process by which that product was generated.
Synthesis
Both articles vividly portray that the computer material consists of a combination of a qualitative exposition of principles of good thinking and the common biases that interfere with it; formal quantitative technique to cancel these biases (including worked examples), and discussion of real problems to illustrate quantitative and qualitative analysis and the relation between them. An equally viable strategy would be to integrate decision analysis concepts and procedures into an existing course, developing the concepts only as needed. The demands on teacher training would probably not be excessive and would depend on which of the knowledge levels between targeted audiences. This approach has the advantage of being acceptable to regular researchers, and of demonstrating to individuals relevance of the material in a number of subject areas. It has the potential disadvantage that the decision-making content may be investigated by researchers whose primary interest is mastery of subject matter content. Bernstein admits: “Typing still leaves something to be desired as a communication tool; it lacks the nuances that can be expressed by body language and voice inflection” (Bernstein n/d). The unit teaches personalized decision analysis using decision problems designed to mirror the kinds of situations faced by the individuals in their lives. The unit consists of eight lessons, each taking one 50-minute class session. Because the unit was evolving as it was being taught, the specific content of the lessons varied for the classes in which the course was taught. The following unit description applies to the most recently taught set of lessons, the version taught to the Fairfax County seventh graders. The most basic goal of the unit is to teach individuals a systematic procedure for reflecting on decision problems and determining the option that best satisfies their goals. The lessons stress that good decision-making depends on the process more than the product. Ideally, individuals should learn those good decision makers systematically consider each of the elements before making a decision, and select the option for which the probable outcomes best satisfy the decision maker’s goals. Each of the structured decision analytic techniques presented to the individuals is presented as a way to systematically take elements into account in making a decision. Individuals learn a numerical technique for scoring each option using a multiattribute chart. Turcle admits that: ‘The new culture would make it easier, not more difficult, to consider life in shades of gray, to see moral dilemmas in terms other than a battle between Good and Evil” (4). Next, individuals assign a new insight to each attribute. The between measures the importance of that attribute to the decision-maker. Researcher sights are multiplied by simple utilities to form utilities, and the technological utilities for an option are summed to form its total utility. The numerical analysis recommends the option with the highest technological utility, but individuals are encouraged to use the analysis only as a guide. Even after doing a multiattribute analysis, individuals’ justifications of recommended decisions tend to sound single-minded, and individuals tend not to mention the bad features of their recommended decision. This tendency is pointed out and discussed: Researchers attempted to simplify the probability problems by asking individuals to assess holistic utilities, rather than integrating the probabilistic with the maldistributed analysis.
Conclusion
In sum, computer technology and the Internet have changed the way of life and interaction of people. As the most important, these technologies deprive people of the chance to develop their thinking and decision-making. Individuals identify uncertainties in several sample decision problems and identify the possible outcomes of the uncertain events. They discuss how important those uncertainties are to the decision. Individuals discuss, for several decision problems, ways of gathering information to reduce uncertainty. For each problem, individuals evaluate different sources of information and discuss which are most and least credible. The concept of probability is introduced as a way of describing our degree of uncertainty about outcomes. This difficulty was at least in part due to our lesson structure, which researchers intend to modify in the future.
Works Cited
Bernstein, E. How Facebook Ruins Friendships. Web.
Turkle, Sh. How Computers Change the Way We Think. 2004. Web.