Technopoly The Surrender of Culture to Te - Neil Postman

• Neil Postman relates the story of King Thamus and the god Theuth from Plato’s Phaedrus. Theuth presents his many inventions, including writing, to King Thamus. Theuth believes writing will improve wisdom and memory. But Thamus argues that writing will weaken memory and create false wisdom. People will rely on external signs (writing) rather than internal memory. They will accumulate information but lack wisdom and judgment. Thamus sees writing as a burden, not a benefit, to society.

• Postman says we can learn from this story. Technological innovations have both positive and negative effects, burdens and benefits. We should not see them as either-or but as this-and-that. However, many “Technophiles” only see the benefits of technology and not the costs. They are “one-eyed prophets.” Postman admits that skeptics like himself who only see the burdens of technology are also “one-eyed prophets” in error. The best view is one that considers both the burdens and benefits of technology.

• The key lesson is that we must think critically and judiciously about technology and its effects. We should not embrace or reject technology wholesale but consider its complex mix of advantages and disadvantages. Moderation and balance are required.

• Thamus does not repeat the error of omitting the benefits of writing in his judgments about other technologies. He acknowledges both the positives and negatives of each invention Theuth presents.

• A wise critique of technology considers both its successes and deficits. Freud, for example, notes both the benefits of technologies like the telephone as well as their costs.

• Technologies are not neutral; their effects follow from their designs and structures. Once a technology is introduced into a culture, it produces intended and unintended consequences that cannot be avoided.

• New technologies redefine and change the meaning of existing terms and concepts, often in ways that are subtle and imperceptible. Thamus argues that writing will alter concepts like memory, wisdom, truth, and law.

• New technologies create “knowledge monopolies” - groups that gain power and prestige from their mastery of a technology. They often promote the technology to maintain their authority, even if it has negative effects on others.

• The consequences of new technologies are unevenly distributed. Some groups benefit greatly while others may suffer or be made obsolete. Those who benefit most often cheer the technology even if it harms others.

• Thamus suggests that the spread of writing will give an undeserved reputation for wisdom to those who become most adept with it. Mastery of a technology can be falsely equated with intelligence or knowledge in general.

• Powerful institutions now have greater access to people’s private information due to technology. People can be more easily tracked, controlled, examined, and targeted.

• Technology has benefited large corporations and institutions, not ordinary people. Their lives have not improved and they have become “losers.” The “winners” encourage enthusiasm about technology to serve their own interests.

• It is hard to predict how new technologies will impact society. They often have unforeseen and unintended consequences that alter culture in complex ways. For example, the mechanical clock enabled the rise of capitalism though it was originally invented for religious purposes.

• New technologies change our conception of knowledge and truth. For example, assigning grades to students seemed strange at first but now shapes how we think about intelligence and human qualities. Numbers are now used to represent all kinds of human attributes and behaviors.

• Technologies have embedded biases that shape how we view and understand the world. Different technologies encourage us to value and focus on certain things over others. They amplify some senses, skills, and ways of thinking more than others.

• In summary, technologies inevitably and subtly alter culture in ideological ways that often benefit some groups over others. But the consequences are hard to foresee, even for those developing the technologies.

• The printing press enabled mass production of books and the spread of new ideas, which the Catholic Church opposed. Martin Luther understood that it allowed common people to read and interpret the Bible for themselves, undermining the Church’s authority.

• New technologies often have unintended consequences that even their inventors do not foresee. Thamus, a legendary Egyptian king, argues that Gutenberg does not realize the printing press will sow discord and damage the Catholic Church. Thamus says new technologies compete with and replace old ones, creating conflict.

• This competition between new and old technologies is a conflict between worldviews. In schools, the printed word and television represent opposing worldviews that compete for students’ minds. New technologies change everything in a culture, not just adding or subtracting from what came before. They reshuffle conditions and remake institutions.

• Practical questions about new technologies’ efficiency or productivity miss the deeper effects on society and thought. We must consider how computers and television change our ideas of learning, religion, politics and more.

• Thamus teaches that new technologies shape our interests, symbols, and communities. We must understand how they do so, not just how efficient or productive they are. The author calls this reshaping of thought and society by new technologies “Technopoly.”

The key ideas are that technologies have unintended consequences; they compete based on the worldviews they represent; they change societies and minds in complex, sweeping ways; and we must examine their deeper cultural and cognitive effects, not just their surface functions or productivity. The author sees a dangerous change in America’s thought brought on by technologies, which the concept of “Technopoly” captures.

• Tool-using cultures are defined by the relationship between their tools and beliefs. Tools do not disrupt the culture’s traditions or values.

• Tool-using cultures can vary in their technological sophistication. Some were advanced, with machines, aqueducts, and cathedrals. Others were primitive. But their tools served to solve practical problems or symbolic needs, and did not challenge the culture’s worldview.

• A culture’s quantity of technology does not define it as tool-using or not. Even sophisticated tool-using cultures were governed by a binding theology or metaphysics that determined how tools were used.

• Examples of tool-using cultures include medieval Europe, governed by Christian theology, and ancient cultures like Egypt and Greece. Their tools and technology were integrated into and subordinate to their religious and cultural beliefs.

• In contrast, technocracies and technopolies are defined by the ascendance of technology and efficiency over cultural traditions and metaphysical beliefs. Tools and technical reasoning become autonomous and self-determining. Cultural and religious traditions are disrupted and challenged.

That covers the essence of the comparison between tool-using cultures and technocracies, as explained in the passage. Let me know if you would like me to clarify or expand the summary.

• Technological tools have a tendency to disrupt and override cultural beliefs and social order. Although cultures aim to integrate tools into their symbolic and social frameworks, tools often end up attacking those frameworks.

• Examples of tools disrupting culture include:

1. The stirrup, which allowed for mounted combat and disrupted the feudal system in 8th-century Europe. The stirrup led to the rise of the knightly class and reshaped feudal society.

2. The mechanical clock, which transitioned from a religious tool to a commercial tool in 14th-century Europe. This required people to organize their lives around the clock rather than religious observances.

3. New tools like matches disrupted cultural practices, values, and social norms, as in the case of the African tribe that had to start a new fire after sex. Matches made this practice obsolete and altered values around adultery and privacy.

• Technocracies emerge when tools become central to a culture and bid to become the culture itself. In technocracies, cultural traditions, values, myths, and institutions have to adapt to the requirements of new tools.

• The rise of technocracy in the West began with three key inventions: the mechanical clock, the printing press, and the telescope. Especially important was the telescope, which led to the realization that the Earth revolves around the sun, disrupting the Judeo-Christian worldview. However, the inventors of these tools did not aim to disrupt culture and still saw themselves operating within a medieval Christian framework. Their tools ended up having disruptive effects they did not fully foresee.

• In sum, while cultures aim to integrate tools, tools often end up attacking culture. Technocracy emerges when tools become central to and even constitutive of culture.

• Kepler believed in keeping theology and science separate but was still a religious man himself. He theorized that the planets travel in elliptical orbits around the sun.

• Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope and arguments disputing literal interpretations of Scripture led to his trial for heresy. Though he denied believing in the Copernican view, it was clear that he did. The Catholic Church could not accommodate beliefs that contradicted Scripture.

• Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo laid the groundwork for overturning medieval theology and philosophy. Newton built on their work. Science replaced theology as the authority, and the meaning of life became uncertain.

• Though instrumental in this scientific revolution, these thinkers were still men of faith. They saw God as a master mathematician who designed the universe. They were trying to uncover God’s plan, not gain power over nature.

• Science at the time was about finding truth, not applying knowledge. These thinkers were not concerned with progress or improving living standards.

• Francis Bacon was the first to see the connection between science and bettering humanity. He criticized earlier thinkers for not aiming to improve life through inventions and new resources.

• Bacon aimed for science to make people happy by improving the human condition. He brought science down from the heavens and applied it to practical problems on earth.

• Bacon argued for experimentation and induction rather than relying on authority, logic, or speculation. He laid out a vision for a society ruled by scientific progress.

So in summary, while the scientific revolution set the stage for a technocratic society by undermining medieval authority and belief, early thinkers were still religious men seeking truth. Bacon was first to apply science to practical problems and see its potential to improve life on earth through technological progress. He articulated a vision of society guided by science that would later characterize technocracies.

Down from the heavens, including mathematics, which Francis Bacon conceived of as a servant to invention and progress. Bacon saw knowledge as a means to gain power over nature and improve human conditions. Though not a scientist himself, Bacon advocated an experimental scientific method based on real-world results and consequences. He identified four “idols” that inhibit progress: idols of tribe (perceptions), idols of cave (personal beliefs), idols of marketplace (language), and idols of theater (philosophical dogmas).

Bacon was the first prophet of technocracy—the belief that scientific knowledge and technological innovation will lead to power and progress. Technocracy began to emerge in England around 1765 with James Watt’s steam engine and the beginnings of mechanization and factory production. Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776 provided a conceptual framework that justified the shift to large-scale mechanized production. The “invisible hand” of the free market would reward efficiency and progress.

Technocracy accelerated with Richard Arkwright’s cotton mills in the 1780s, which used machinery and child labor to mass produce textiles. By the early 1800s, England was filled with technocratic entrepreneurs and new inventions like the power loom were revolutionizing industry. Bacon’s vision of using knowledge to gain power over nature and improve the human condition was becoming a reality.

• The 19th century saw the rise of technocracy - the belief that society’s problems could be solved through the use of technology and scientific knowledge.
• There were rapid technological changes, including the rise of machines to make machines (the machine-tool industry). Invention became popular, and there was a “collective fervor” for new technologies.
• Some criticized these changes, seeing the “dark, satanic mills” that turned people into cogs in a machine and stripped them of their souls. Utopian communities formed to protest these changes. The Luddite movement violently protested new technologies that were eliminating jobs.
• However, technocracy also brought increased freedom and improved standards of living. Public education spread, literacy increased, and literature reached a mass audience. People gained more political and religious freedom.
• The U.S. in particular prospered in this age of technocracy, though some still protested the loss of tradition and meaning. There was still some respect for traditions, religion, family, and community, though technocracy challenged these.
• Writers like Mark Twain showed the mix of enthusiasm for technology and nostalgia for tradition. Twain praised the 19th century’s technologies but his writing also showed a longing for the pre-industrial past.

In summary, the 19th century saw both the rise of technocracy with its rapid changes and improved standards of living, as well as protests against the way it dispensed with tradition and community. There were mixed views, and a tension between technocracy and the old social and symbolic world.

• The Yarn Mill of Natchez has a capacity of 6000 spindles and 160 looms and employs 100 workers.

• It began operating 4 years ago in a 50x190 ft building with 4000 spindles and 128 looms.

• It processes 5000 bales of cotton annually and produces 5 million yards of brown shirtings, sheetings and drills.

• Although Mark Twain described the wonders of industry, his works overall celebrated preindustrial values like loyalty, tradition, family and wisdom of elders.

• Technocracy did not fully replace the tool-using culture because industrialization was still new, and people still needed preindustrial philosophies and beliefs to address questions of meaning. Two worldviews coexisted in tension.

• Technopoly emerged when the technological worldview dominated and eliminated alternatives, as in Huxley’s Brave New World. The US became the first Technopoly.

• The Scopes “monkey” trial of 1925 symbolized the conflict between science and faith, but the Interstate Commerce Commission hearings of 1910 marked the rise of a technological theology.

• Frederick Winslow Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management outlined Technopoly’s assumptions: efficiency, technical calculation over judgment, subjectivity as an obstacle, measurable things matter most, and experts should guide society.

• Though Taylor proposed “scientific management” for industry, its ideas came to shape culture.

The rise of Technopoly in America was enabled by several factors:

1. The American ethos values novelty, progress, and boundless optimism. This predisposed Americans to readily accept new technologies and place great faith in their benefits.

2. Visionary entrepreneurs and capitalists in America were adept at exploiting new technologies for profit. They helped spread new technologies rapidly throughout society and culture.

3. New technologies delivered real benefits to Americans in the form of convenience, abundance, health, etc. This led to widespread belief in technology as a solution to problems.

4. Traditional sources of belief and meaning came under attack in the 19th century from thinkers like Nietzsche, Darwin, Marx, and Freud. This left a “conceptual vacuum” that belief in technology and progress helped fill.

5. A wider context of improbability: Rapid social changes led to a sense that “anything is possible.” This fueled willingness to believe in radical new ideas and improbable claims, even those without evidence. The spread of “social science” and its implausible experiments and claims is both a symptom and a cause of this wider condition of improbability.

So in summary, technological changes were deeply influential, but they were amplified by the social conditions and intellectual currents of 19th-century America. These factors coalesced to create fertile ground for the development of Technopoly.

The author engages in an experiment where he provides implausible information to people and finds that many are willing to believe or partially believe it, especially if he cites authoritative-sounding sources like major universities. He offers several possible explanations for this credulity:

1. People will believe almost anything, as Mencken said.

2. People today are as credulous as in the Middle Ages, believing in the authority of science as people then believed in religion, as Shaw said.

3. The modern world is largely incomprehensible to people, so they have no basis to judge implausible claims. They believe because they have no reason not to.

The author compares this to being given a shuffled deck of cards rather than a new, ordered one. With the shuffled deck, any card is as likely as another, so nothing would be surprising or implausible. Likewise, in today’s world, with the decline of a coherent worldview, “information chaos” reigns and nothing seems implausible.

The rise of Progress and science was meant to bring order and purpose, but instead resulted in information glut through new technologies. This glut leads to problems like political conflicts, starvation, crime, divorce, and mental illness. Yet technologists continue to believe that more information is the solution to all problems.

Information became a kind of god and end in itself with the printing press, which produced an information glut centuries ago. This has accelerated with new technologies. But information glut, not scarcity, is now the real problem.

In summary, the author argues that the lack of a coherent worldview and the rise of information glut, especially due to new technologies, have made people credulous and unable to judge implausible claims or address complex human problems. Information has become an unquestioned good and end in itself rather than a means to real understanding or solutions.

• Printing led to an information explosion in the 16th and 17th centuries that transformed Western culture. It enabled the spread of new scientific ideas and Protestantism.

• This explosion of information initially caused chaos and anxiety. In response, Western culture developed new institutions and ways of thinking to adapt. This included the development of schools, representative government, new economic systems like capitalism, and new forms of public discourse.

• The 18th century, in particular, showed how Western culture had adapted to the new information environment. It produced enlightened thinkers who embodied the ideal of reason, such as Goethe, Voltaire, Jefferson, and Franklin.

• The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were products of this new information environment. They enshrined values like intellectual freedom, openness, and individualism that came from the spread of printing.

• For over 200 years, from the 17th to 19th centuries, no new technologies significantly changed how information was formatted, distributed, or consumed. This gave Western culture time to adapt to the printing press.

• In the 19th century, new technologies like the telegraph and photography led to another information explosion that again disrupted Western culture. New institutions and ways of thinking were required to adapt to these changes.

The key argument is that major technologies that transform information create disruptions that take time for cultures to adapt to. But with time and conscious adaptation, cultures can thrive in new information environments. The 18th century shows how Western culture fully adapted to the printing press, while later periods show how it struggled to adapt to new technologies like the telegraph.

• Technopoly is a culture and state of mind that worships technology and believes progress is defined by technological advancement. It seeks purpose and authority from technology.

• Those most comfortable in Technopoly believe technology will solve humanity’s greatest problems and produce increased freedom, creativity, and well-being. They believe information is an unqualified good, even though it actually does the opposite. These beliefs are a product of Technopoly itself.

• Technopoly arises when a culture’s defenses against excess information break down. Technology increases the supply of information, straining control mechanisms. New technical control mechanisms further increase information, creating a cycle.

• When information overwhelms control mechanisms, psychological and social well-being deteriorate. Without defenses, people lose meaning, memory, and the ability to envision the future.

• Technopoly occurs when information technology and abundance overcome a culture’s institutions, and the culture tries to use technology to provide purpose and clarity, usually failing. Understanding how defenses normally operate is key to using technology to remedy technology’s ills.

• The relationship between information supply and control is simple: more technology means more information; more information requires more controls; more technical controls mean yet more information; and when information overwhelms controls, society suffers.

The summary articulates Postman’s definition of Technopoly and how it comes about due to a culture’s broken defenses against information glut, which in turn is caused by a cycle of increasing information and failing control mechanisms. Meaning, memory, and foresight depend on maintaining these defenses, but Technopoly erodes them by relying on technology alone for purpose and solutions. The only way out is grasping how defenses work in the first place. Overall, it’s a sobering theory on how technology and information can, without proper checks, undermine society and humanity.

The author argues that societies have institutions and mechanisms that function like a biological immune system to control information flow and maintain order. These defenses have become dysfunctional in today’s world.

As examples, the author cites:

1. The court of law which has strict rules to limit information admitted as evidence in order to arrive at justice. Without these rules, the trial would never end and the law would lose meaning.

2. The school curriculum which specifies what subjects and fields of study are legitimate and should be focused on. By implication, it excludes other topics and information as illegitimate. The breakdown of the curriculum is seen in the rise of concepts like ‘cultural literacy’ which lacks a coherent organizing principle.

3. The family which acted as a control mechanism by determining what information children were exposed to and what ‘secrets’ of adult life they were sheltered from. Families that cannot control information flow can barely function as families.

4. Political parties which provide standards to judge and assign significance to political events and information. For example, information from one’s affiliated party may be seen as truth while the opposing party’s information is seen as rubbish.

In summary, the key idea is that social institutions function to constrain information in order to create meaning, order and stability. But many of these defenses have broken down today, leaving us vulnerable to information chaos.

1. Theories provide a way to weight, filter, and exclude information. They allow us to make sense of the world by simplifying it. However, because they oversimplify, theories are vulnerable to being challenged by new information that does not fit with them. When there is too much information, and no coherent theory to make sense of it, information becomes meaningless.

2. Religion and the state are two of the most powerful institutions for controlling information. They create myths and stories to convey theories about fundamental questions of existence. For example, the Bible provided a comprehensive narrative for medieval Europeans and also served as a mechanism to control moral behavior by prescribing what is acceptable or forbidden.

3. For religious fundamentalists, their theory (e.g. the literal truth of the Bible) allows them to dismiss other theories and information that contradicts it. Their theory guides what information they are exposed to and gives meaning to their actions. Those who reject such religious theories, like proponents of science, also filter out information that does not fit with their theory.

4. Marxism is another example of a powerful theory that guided how people understood events and which information they should pay attention to. As belief in Marxism has declined, people have lost this guidance and coherence. There is confusion over what and who to believe.

5. Liberal democracy now triumphant in the West provides less coherence than earlier ideologies like Marxism. Its meaning differs in a technocracy versus a Technopoly. In Technopoly, it comes closer to “commodity capitalism.” The U.S. founding fathers infused their experiment in democracy with moral purpose, seeing it as part of God’s plan. But the moral content of liberal democracy today is less clear.

In summary, the key point is that theories, ideologies, and belief systems serve as mechanisms to regulate information by determining what we should pay attention to and how we should interpret it. As dominant theories break down, we lose this mechanism for making sense of information and the world. The result is often confusion, lack of meaning, and an inability to determine what information matters most.

• The passage discusses the role of bureaucracy in Technopoly and its effects on society. Bureaucracy refers to a system of management that relies on a coordinated set of techniques to efficiently handle information by reducing complexity.

• Originally, bureaucracy was meant to serve social institutions by improving efficiency. However, as society became more complex, bureaucracy grew extensively and became an autonomous system that serves itself. This led to a “bureaucracy effect” where more bureaucracy was needed to manage bureaucracy.

• Bureaucracy is dangerous because it now addresses moral, social and political issues, not just technical ones. Bureaucrats themselves are focused on efficiency and indifferent to the implications and nuances of human problems. They see issues only in terms of how they affect the operations of bureaucracy.

• The example of Adolf Eichmann is used to illustrate the dangers of bureaucracy. As a bureaucrat, Eichmann did not care why people were being moved or what would happen to them. He was only concerned with the technical issues of moving them efficiently.

• In summary, the passage argues that bureaucracy has become an uncontrolled system in Technopoly that defines social problems in terms of efficiency alone and is unable to properly handle moral and human issues. It has become a “disease” that creates more problems than it solves.

• HAGOTH was a machine that claimed to be able to detect lies over the phone by measuring “stress content” in a person’s voice. It used 16 lights to indicate the level of stress, with green lights indicating “truthfulness” and red lights indicating deception.

• The author argues that HAGOTH’s definition of truthfulness was peculiar and not actually valid. It assumed that people cannot speak the truth with a quivering voice or lie with a steady one, which is not the case.

• The author compares HAGOTH to standard intelligence tests, saying they work on the same faulty principle. They claim to be able to precisely measure complex human qualities like truthfulness or intelligence through a simplistic mechanical process.

• Technopoly values the accuracy and precision of the machinery more than the validity of the ideas and assumptions underlying them. As long as the technology seems advanced and precise, the peculiar logic is ignored.

• HAGOTH disappeared from the market, possibly because it was “sexist or culturally biased or, worse, could not measure oscillations accurately enough.” Technopoly cares little for the ideas embedded in technology, only how advanced and precise it seems.

• The key point is that Technopoly readily embraces peculiar and invalid ideas as long as they are expressed in an advanced, specialized, and quantitative technological form. The technical form masks the lack of real substance or validity.

Does this summary accurately reflect the key ideas and arguments presented regarding HAGOTH and its relation to Technopoly’s ideology? Let me know if you would like me to clarify or expand the summary in any way.

American medical practice is characterized by an aggressive approach and heavy reliance on technology. This traces back to cultural and historical factors. The American character values conquering and taming the natural environment. In medicine, this translated to an approach of aggressively attacking disease. Benjamin Rush, an influential 18th-century physician, advocated for extreme interventions like bloodletting and purging. He believed that American diseases required extreme treatment. This set the tone for American medicine to favor new technologies and interventions.

The stethoscope, invented in 1816, was an early medical technology that allowed much more accurate diagnosis, especially of lung diseases. It amplified the sounds within the body, allowing physicians to “see” inside the chest. The stethoscope symbolized how technology became the means for medicine to conquer disease and the body. This fit well with the American impulse toward action and intervention.The heavy use of medical technology, from tests to surgeries to drugs, is a hallmark of American medicine due to this cultural and historical proclivity.

• Not all doctors or patients were enthusiastic about the stethoscope when it was first introduced. Doctors objected to it for several reasons, including that it would diminish their skills and judgment. Patients feared it implied surgery.

• The stethoscope helped transform medicine by making it focus on disease rather than the patient. It promoted the idea that the patient’s experiences and sensations were untrustworthy, but what technology revealed was reliable.

• Each new medical technology built on this idea and further estranged doctors from patients and their own judgment. Now medicine relies almost entirely on technology, and doctors have lost skills from previous stages.

• Doctors now rely heavily on technology for diagnosis and treatment in part due to fear of malpractice suits. Patients also expect high-tech solutions. This is economically rewarding but often medically unnecessary.

• Three factors led to medicine’s technological dominance: American enthusiasm for technology, 19th-century inventions, and a culture that came to demand technological solutions. This has led to ideas like nature being an enemy, side effects requiring more technology, a focus on disease not patients, and technology being more reliable than doctors’ judgment.

• Medical technology has benefits, like lasers for cataracts or laparoscopic surgery. But it also leads to potential overuse, as with the high rate of C-sections. Technology cannot solve all health problems, and medicine must not lose sight of patients’ experiences.

• In summary, medical technology has revolutionized medicine for better and worse. Restraint and judgment are needed to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs. Medicine must not become estranged from the patient.

• Computer technology has been embraced by American Technopoly in an uncritical and unhealthy way, as was the case with medical technology.

• Computers are difficult to critique because they are so versatile and integrated into so many technologies and aspects of life. They are not like stethoscopes, which have a limited, specific use. Computers are used by everyone for almost everything.

• Examples of innovative and strange uses of computers include: designing water slides; making presentations at corporate meetings; helping juries remember testimony; providing instant access to Bible verses; making investment decisions; helping police locate callers.

• Charles Babbage conceptualized and worked on programmable calculating machines starting in 1822. His designs became more complex over time. He eventually realized these machines could manipulate non-numerical symbols in the same way the alphabet revolutionized information storage and retrieval.

• Babbage’s insight was as significant as the ancient Greeks’ discovery of the alphabetic principle. His calculating machines evolved into the modern computer.

• The ideas embedded in computers are similarly powerful, versatile, and culture-changing as the alphabet. They have reshaped our symbolic environment in radical ways, for better and for worse.

So in summary, the key ideas are:

1. Computers have been embraced without enough critical consideration.

2. Computers are extremely versatile and integrated, so they are hard to critique.

3. Examples show computers are used in innovative and strange ways for almost everything.

4. Babbage envisioned programmable calculating machines that evolved into computers.

5. His insight was as significant as the alphabet; computers have reshaped our culture.

6. The ideas embedded in computers are as powerful, versatile, and culture-changing as the alphabet.

Charles Babbage speculated about intelligent machines in the 19th century, but the technology was not available to build them. The modern digital computer was invented in the 1940s by John von Neumann. These computers showed that machines could perform functions that seemed intelligent. In the 1950s, Joseph Weizenbaum created ELIZA, a program that could have basic conversations, showing how machines could pass Alan Turing’s test of intelligence.

Weizenbaum later argued that computers should not do everything they are capable of, and that they were changing how people view the world. Computers present the metaphor that humans are information processors, and nature is information to be processed. This subordinates human nature, biology, emotions, and spirituality to technology. Some enthusiasts even suggest that computers will overtake and control humans.

This metaphor taken to the extreme suggests that humans are just machines, and machines are human. But human intelligence is biological and cannot be duplicated by machines. Machines cannot feel or understand in the way humans do. They only simulate these abilities. Meaning, emotions, and experience are uniquely human.

Still, the machine metaphor has influenced how we think and speak. We talk of “programming” ourselves, “hard wiring,” and “retrieving data” in our brains. The 1988 internet virus was described in biological terms, suggesting computers could be “infected,” “contagious,” “quarantined,” and “inoculated.” This implies computers have will, intention, and responsibility, relieving humans of responsibility for technology. People blame “the computers” rather than the people responsible for them. This demonstrates the “agentic shift” where we transfer responsibility from ourselves to technology.

The author argues that:

1. Computers are different from most technologies in that they primarily direct and control work rather than perform work themselves. This allows them to deflect responsibility away from human actors, especially in bureaucracies. The decisions and judgments of computers are often accepted unquestioningly, as if they came from an unimpeachable higher authority.

2. Computer technology has strengthened bureaucracy and suppressed significant social change. While computers may have increased efficiency in some domains, they have distracted from questioning whether the institutions and systems they support are actually necessary or beneficial. Computers make flawed systems and ideas seem more impressive and authoritative without actually improving them.

3. Computers advance several problematic ideas, including the metaphor of humans as machines and machines as human surrogates. This reduces confidence in human judgment and subjectivity. Computers overemphasize process over substance and calculation over holistic understanding.

4. Computer technology exemplifies the idea that “the medium is the message.” Computers are focused on speed, volume of information, and calculation rather than substantive communication or meaning. While valuable in some specialized contexts, these emphases are diversionary and even dangerous when applied indiscriminately.

5. The author argues against the notion that most serious human problems can be solved primarily through computational means. Meaningful progress on such problems requires human judgment, ethics, and wisdom that computers do not possess.

In summary, the author is arguing for restraint and skepticism in applying computer technology, especially in areas that require human subtlety, ethics, and judgment. Unchecked, computer technology tends to strengthen unthinking bureaucracy and advance a reductive vision of human affairs. But with prudent, reflective application focused on human priorities and values, computer technology can potentially be developed and applied more constructively.

The author argues that language is an invisible technology that shapes our view of the world in significant ways. Like any technology, language has an ideological agenda that is often hidden from view. Language seems natural to us but actually comes from inside us. We wrongly believe language is a direct, unbiased expression of how the world really is.

The author gives the example of questions to show how language functions like a machine. A fill-in question about when Thomas Jefferson died requires precise knowledge to answer. A multiple-choice version with the options of 1788, 1826, 1926 or 1809 makes it much easier to guess the correct answer, even without precise knowledge, by structuring the choices in a leading way.

The main point is that language, as a technology, is not neutral. It has a built-in ideology that shapes how we think about and understand the world. But because language seems natural, as it comes from within us, we fail to recognize its power to recreate the world in its image. Recognizing the technological effects of language can help us gain perspective on its influence.

• Questions are not neutral but direct our thinking in specific ways. They can reveal or hide facts, generate new ideas or support old ones. Even small changes in wording can lead to very different answers.

• The mathematical concept of zero is a technology that enables certain kinds of thought. Like the alphabet, it shapes how we think. Statistics is another conceptual technology that allows us to perceive large-scale patterns.

• Francis Galton abused statistics to promote flawed ideas like eugenics. He tried to quantify concepts like beauty, boredom, and intelligence in problematic ways. For example, he ranked areas of Britain by the beauty of women he observed on the street.

• Three major problems with Galton’s statistical arguments were:

1. Reification: Treating abstract concepts like intelligence as measurable, concrete things.
2. Aggregation: Combining data in a way that obscures important differences or relationships. For example, averaging the intelligence of groups.
3. Extrapolation: Extending statistical findings beyond the groups actually studied. For example, applying conclusions based only on observations of British people to humanity in general.

• In summary, conceptual tools like language, mathematics, and statistics are powerful technologies that can be easily misused. We must be careful about how we apply them and the assumptions built into them.

1. Intelligence is an abstract concept, not a concrete thing. It is a word we use to refer approvingly to certain human capabilities. There is no single, measurable thing called “intelligence.”

2. Ranking intelligence requires defining it as a single, measurable trait, like a number. But intelligence has no objective criterion to rank people on. It is subjective. Ranking people’s intelligence is like ranking beauty based only on breast size.

3. The way we define and measure intelligence is biased and limited. But this subjectivity is obscured by the “mystique of science” and numbers. The IQ reifies the concept of intelligence.

4. Measuring group intelligence is useless and potentially harmful. There is too much variation among individuals to make group judgments. Such judgments are often used to justify unequal treatment.

5. Public opinion polling also obscures subjectivity with numbers. The wording of poll questions strongly influences responses. Answering poll questions is not the same as developing an informed opinion through discussion and debate.

6. Polls ignore what people actually know about issues. They measure superficial “beliefs” or reactions, not informed judgment. Leaders rely too heavily on polls, rather than their own judgment and experience.

7. In a technopoly, statistics and numbers are revered as objective, even when the concepts they measure are subjective or obscure. Subjective judgments are disguised as scientific fact. This undermines democratic debate and decision making.

The key points in the passage are:

1. Opinion polls are problematic as they can be unreliable and inaccurate due to ignorance and misinformation among those polled. For example, a poll found that many Americans confused Nicaragua with other countries or did not understand the concept of economic aid.

2. Polls shift responsibility from political leaders to constituents. Leaders are expected to make decisions based on their own judgment and knowledge, not just public opinion. But polls pressure leaders to defer to public opinion.

3. Television show ratings are an example of polls shifting responsibility. Shows are judged based solely on ratings, not quality or creativity. Writers are responsible solely to audiences.

4. Statistics creates a lot of useless information that makes it hard to find useful information. Examples of useless statistics are given, like rankings of fruit consumption by state. Not all statistics are useless, but many are trivial.

5. Some technologies come disguised as something else. Examples are IQ tests, polls, grades, courses, credit cards, and management. We often don’t recognize their origins or effects. For example, the 15-week course structure exists for administrative reasons, not learning.

6. Management is an example of a disguised technology. It is usually assumed that business invented management, but management actually invented modern business. Management originated in the U.S. in the 1800s, not in response to business needs. It arose from a new grading system at West Point that introduced competition and control.

So in summary, the key ideas relate to the problems with polls and statistics, the fact that some important technologies come disguised in a way that obscures their real nature and effects, and the example of how management was not a product of business needs but instead developed in the U.S. as a system of power and control.

• The idea of a “science of man” originated in the late 18th century with the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris. The school gathered leading scientists and applied the methods of the natural sciences to the study of human behavior and society.

• Auguste Comte built on this idea and formulated a more coherent vision of a science of society that could uncover universal laws of human behavior. This belief in an objective, scientific study of human beings is known as “scientism.”

• Scientism holds that the natural scientific method can be applied to the social sciences and humanities. It assumes that this will yield factual information, testable theories, and profound insights into human nature, perhaps even universal laws of human behavior.

• The author argues that reports in The New York Times illustrate a belief in scientism. The reports describe trivial or obvious findings about human psychology and behavior as if they are major insights or discoveries. The belief seems to be that because the studies follow a scientific method, the results must be meaningful or profound.

• The author is skeptical about scientism and the notion that the study of human beings can be as objective and yield the same kinds of universal laws as the natural sciences. Human behavior and society are too complex, and we must consider the effects of the observer and choices in what is studied. Meaningful insights into human existence may require methods beyond just scientific empiricism.

• In summary, the spread of scientism represents a kind of technological and ideological imperialism. The scientific method and mindset are applied in domains where they may not be wholly appropriate or adequate. This can limit our understanding of the human condition. We must ensure that techniques like scientific empiricism serve human purposes rather than become sanctified and autonomous.

The essay argues against classifying the social sciences as “sciences” in the same sense that physics, chemistry, and biology are sciences. The author draws a distinction between natural processes that can be studied objectively and human practices that cannot. Natural processes follow immutable laws and can be understood through the scientific method of forming and testing hypotheses. Human practices, on the other hand, result from human decisions and intelligence interacting with the environment. They are not determined by natural laws and are not amenable to the scientific method.

The author argues that the scientific method depends on objectivity, quantifying observations, and testing theories for falsifiability. None of these conditions apply to the study of human behavior and society. Social scientists often quantify their observations, but mere counting does not make a science. Everyone observes the world empirically, but science requires a high degree of objectivity in studying the natural world independently of human opinions and values. Scientific objects are indifferent to being studied, unlike people. And there are virtually no experiments that can prove social scientific theories false.

In summary, the author believes the quest to understand human behavior cannot properly be called science. The methods of social science do not generate the kind of reliable and predictable knowledge that the natural sciences produce. Calling psychology, sociology, and anthropology “sciences” is deceptive and confuses natural processes with human practices. The social sciences have not contributed much to understanding society because they are not truly sciences. Their theories disappear not due to being proven false but because they become boring.

The key argument is that human behavior and society cannot be studied scientifically like natural phenomena can be. The beliefs and motivations of people invariably shape how they are understood, unlike the indifferent natural world. For this reason, the social sciences should not be classified as science in the same sense that physics and chemistry are. Their theories and methods are not genuinely scientific.

The author argues that social science is not science in the strict sense. Unlike real science, social science theories and research cannot be falsified through empirical tests and experiments. Social science studies, like Milgram’s obedience experiments, merely confirm commonplaces or provide interpretations of human events that cannot be proven or disproven. These interpretations depend heavily on the biases and prejudices of the researcher.

The author compares social science research to imaginative literature and storytelling. Like fiction, social science provides unique interpretations of human events to convey certain moral messages or insights. However, unlike fiction, social science is limited by the facts gathered from subjects or interviews. But at their core, both imaginative literature and social science research tell stories and “tribal tales” about human beliefs and behaviors during a particular time and place. They unfold these stories using either narrative or exposition. Although their forms differ, their aims are quite similar.

So in summary, the key arguments are:

1. Social science is not real science because its theories and research cannot be falsified.

2. Social science research merely provides interpretations and stories about human events that cannot be proven or disproven.

3. Social science is a form of storytelling, much like fiction, with the goal of gaining insights into human beliefs and behaviors.

4. The main difference is that fiction is limited by the author’s imagination while social science is limited by the facts gathered from subjects. But they both tell stories about people.

Does this summary accurately reflect the author’s main points? Let me know if you would like me to clarify or expand on any part of the summary.

• The author argues that social research, like fiction, constructs stories and uses archetypes and metaphors to convey ideas. However, social research stories are told for didactic and moralistic purposes, not just for entertainment.

• In Technopoly, precise, scientific knowledge is preferred over subjective, moral knowledge. Social research must adopt a scientific guise to be taken seriously.

• The author distinguishes science, social research, and fiction as three different forms of storytelling with different aims, questions, procedures, and meanings of truth. Social research has little in common with science but shares more with fiction. However, social researchers identify themselves as scientists to gain authority and prestige.

• We have cooperated in perpetuating the illusion that social research is a science. This is partly due to misunderstanding the differences between the natural and social worlds. But it is also due to science discrediting religious stories of the physical world, leading us to prefer “scientific” stories about human society as well.

• In summary, the key ideas are: 1) social research constructs subjective stories like fiction, not objective science; 2) Technopoly prefers scientific knowledge and forces social research to adopt a scientific guise; 3) science, social research, and fiction have different aims and meanings of truth; 4) we perpetuate the illusion of social research as science due to misunderstanding and preferring scientific over religious stories.

The increasing commercialization and trivialization of important cultural and religious symbols is an inevitable consequence of technological progress and the spread of Technopoly. Two factors enable the trivialization of such symbols:

1. Symbols, especially visual images, are repeatable but not inexhaustible. Repeated use of a symbol diminishes its meaning and emotional impact.

2. Frequent exposure to a symbol through mass reproductions (e.g. prints, photos, TV, movies) leads to indifference towards the symbol. Sacred and meaningful symbols become commonplace.

Commercial interests, in their push to promote new technologies and products, must supplant traditional symbols and gods. They drain established symbols of their meaning and connotations in order to elevate new symbols, like technology. While blasphemy recognizes the power of symbols, trivialization renders them impotent and meaningless. There is no way to legislate against trivialization.

Examples of trivialization include using Jesus to sell wine or God to sell frankfurters. These ads do not blaspheme but rather diminish these religious figures into tools for commercial gain. They turn sacred symbols into commonplaces and render them trivial.

In summary, the spread of Technopoly and its values necessarily and inevitably leads to the trivialization of previously held cultural symbols by robbing them of their meaning through overuse and commercialization. Traditional sources of meaning and authority are displaced in favor of technology and commercialism.

• Prior to the rise of mass media and advertising, most people encountered relatively few images in their daily lives. Images were scarce and thus had power and meaning.

• With the mass proliferation of images, especially in advertising, images have lost much of their power and meaning. Repeated exposure to an image or word drains it of its symbolic value. This is known as “symbol drain.”

• Advertisers rely on the repetition of images and words, often using them in trivial or silly ways, to sell products. This contributes to symbol drain.

• Early advertising used rational appeals focused on product quality. Modern advertising relies more on psychological appeals, using images and words to tap into consumers’ emotions, fantasies, and insecurities. This shift moved business away from creating valuable products toward manipulating consumers.

• The average American sees millions of TV commercials over a lifetime. Combined with other media, this leads to massive symbol overload and drain. Important cultural symbols are exploited, amounting to a kind of “cultural rape.”

• Technopoly’s ideology of progress and its indifference to tradition have allowed this state of affairs to develop. Few constraints remain on how cultural symbols can be used in advertising.

• Overall, Boorstin argues that the mass proliferation of advertising images in Technopoly has diluted the power of symbols and contributed to a loss of meaning. The sacred and the profane have become confused.

• Mass advertising is a symptom, not the cause, of the erosion of cultural symbols. The root causes are technologies that make such erosion possible and an ideology that sees tradition as an obstacle.

• The loss of symbols leads to a loss of narrative, which gives meaning and guidance to a culture. Education philosophies of the past were based on transcendent narratives, but modern education has lost a sense of purpose beyond job skills and economic competitiveness.

• The “television commercial test” shows how difficult it would be to persuade people today with the educational philosophies of thinkers like Jefferson, Dewey, or Locke, who focused on citizenship, reasoning, and intellectual development. Recent attempts to provide a new narrative, like E.D. Hirsch’s idea of “cultural literacy,” have been limited and controversial.

• In short, the essay argues that the trivialization of cultural symbols reflects and accelerates the decline of meaningful narratives in a society. Technopoly in particular tends to undermine the symbols and stories that give purpose and authority to a culture.

• Cultural critics are usually satisfied with identifying and analyzing problems, not offering solutions. They are better at criticism than practical suggestions.

• There are three types of voices that ask critics for solutions:

1. The voice of hope: Seeks an optimistic vision and practical steps towards a better future. But critics are wary of offering facile “solutions”.

2. The voice of technophilia: Believes technology itself can solve the problems and lead to progress. But critics argue technology also creates problems and should not be seen as an end in itself.

3. The voice of intellect: Seeks logical solutions and coherent arguments. But critics argue that culture and human affairs are complex, and problems cannot be “solved” rationally. Solutions depend on moral and spiritual questions.

• The critic argues that in the face of Technopoly, the most constructive response is to become a “loving resistance fighter” - someone who balances love and resistance. Resistance means fighting the excesses and inhumanity of Technopoly. But it must be done with love, care, and compassion for others.

• Examples of loving resistance include: preserving humanistic traditions; spending meaningful time with children; practicing and teaching strong values; working for political and social reforms; and using technology judiciously and skeptically.

• The loving resistance fighter understands that Technopoly cannot be “solved” or escaped, but can be resisted through human responsibility, care, and moral/spiritual reflection. This is the most hopeful vision critics can offer.

The key insight is that the solution lies not in some master plan or technological fix, but in how individuals choose to live their lives with care, responsibility and judicious skepticism. The aggregate of many such individual acts of “loving resistance” is the most constructive response to problems of culture and technology.

The author proposes that in order to counter the effects of Technopoly, one should adopt the role of a loving resistance fighter. This means:

1. Retaining an affection for the symbols and narratives that represent the ideals of America, like the Statue of Liberty. Despite its flaws, America still represents hope and experimentation.

2. Resisting the excesses of technology and efficiency. This includes being skeptical of progress, valuing tradition and community, and avoiding the overreliance on and overcredulity in science, social science, and information.

3. Scrutinizing and maintaining a distance from technology rather than accepting it as natural or inevitable. All technology carries an agenda and philosophy that requires examination.

4. Education is key to combating Technopoly. Schools need to provide students with a sense of coherence, purpose and meaning in their studies. The current curriculum is fragmented and lacks vision or values. While schools can’t restore religion or implement a narrow curriculum, they need a moral and intellectual center. Emotional health, critical thinking, or job skills alone don’t provide enough coherence.

5. The solution may lie in centering education around humanity’s perennial questions and the search for meaning through philosophy, arts, history, and spirituality. This could provide coherence without indoctrinating any particular view. By focusing on meaning, purpose and values, students can better understand and respond to the challenges of technology.

So in summary, the loving resistance fighter cultivates hope and memory, avoids technological determinism, scrutinizes technology, and favors an education that provides coherence through a search for meaning rather than just skills or job training. This approach could help individuals and society better navigate and shape technology to human ends.

The author proposes teaching subjects by incorporating their historical dimensions. This helps students understand that knowledge evolves over time through human efforts. Teaching subjects in isolation, as consumer products detached from their histories, deprives students of appreciating the meaning and development of ideas.

Including history in all subjects allows students to connect ideas across time and see themselves as part of an ongoing intellectual tradition. They can understand how ancient speculations relate to modern knowledge. While incorporating history in all subjects may be challenging, it is crucial for a meaningful education.

Teaching “histories” rather than a single definitive “history” helps students understand how and why historical accounts differ. Histories reflect the cultural perspectives and biases of historians. Students must learn a particular history to evaluate others but should understand how histories are culturally produced. A histories teacher explains how objectivity and events are understood differently across cultures.

Overall, the author argues for teaching students to value the quest for knowledge as an ongoing human enterprise to which they can contribute. Education should focus on the coherence and development of ideas, not just skills or information. Incorporating histories in all subjects helps students participate in the long “ascent of humanity” through knowledge.

The key ideas in the passage are:

1. History should be taught as comparative history, not just a chronicle of events. This helps students develop concepts and theories to understand events, not just know them as fragmented facts.

2. Science education should include the history and philosophy of science, not just scientific facts and methods. Students need to understand what a theory is, how science progresses, the role of imagination, inductive reasoning, falsifiability, etc. This helps them understand science as a way of thinking, not just a body of knowledge.

3. Education should include semantics - the study of meaning and language. This is crucial for critical thinking, evaluating ideas, and clear communication. It helps avoid common errors of thought and language.

4. Education should focus on enduring works of art, music, and literature, not just contemporary popular culture. Studying the masterpieces of the past frees us from the “tyranny of the present” and shows the continuity of human experience over time.

5. In general, education should aim for “the ascent of humanity” - helping students understand human intellectual and creative achievements over the long term. This broad, historical perspective is lacking in a “Technopoly” focused only on short-term skills and facts.

So in summary, the key point is that education should provide historical and theoretical depth, not just focus on isolated facts, skills, and contemporary culture. A broad, humanistic perspective focused on enduring ideas and masterworks is needed to truly understand ourselves and the world.

The passage argues that students today lack the aesthetic sensibility to appreciate classical art forms like Shakespeare, Haydn, and Hals. The author proposes including in the school curriculum subjects like the history of technology, comparative religion, and classical art forms. The goal is to provide students with an understanding of the historical development of humanity and its “roots.” Such an education would allow students to understand the relationship between technology and society, begin informed conversations about technology’s direction, and achieve some distance from and criticism of the modern “Technopoly.”

Here is a summary in 44 words:

Medieval authority of church on knowledge ended with Bacon challenging natural philosophy. Rise of specialized fields - astronomy, anthropology, accounting. Tech innovations - Arabic numbers, alphabetization, machines powered Industrial Revolution. Beniger saw “agentic shift” to quantification and control. Belief in measurement but loss of meaning.

Here is a summary of the requested entries:

177, 189-90: Page numbers. blasphemy, 78, 165, 167: References related to blasphemy. Civilization and Its Discontents (Freud), 5-6: Reference to Freud’s work. Bloom, Allan, 177, 179: References to Allan Bloom. Bolter, J. David, 111, 118: References to J. David Bolter’s work. books, printed, 61-2, 64-5: References related to the printing press and spread of printed books. clock, mechanical, invention of, 14-15, 27, 28-9: References related to the mechanical clock. Closing of the American Mind, The (Bloom), 177: Reference to Allan Bloom’s work. Coles, Robert, 156: Reference to Robert Coles. college catalogues, 74-5: Reference related to college catalogues. college “course,” 138, 142: References related to the concept of “courses” in higher education. Comenius, John Amos, 171: Reference to John Amos Comenius. “commodity capitalism,” 82: Reference to the concept of “commodity capitalism.” Common Sense (Paine), 66: Reference to Thomas Paine’s work. communications revolution, 42, 60-1, 67, 85; computers in, 118-19: References related to the communications revolution and role of computers.

Does this help summarize the requested entries? Let me know if you would like me to clarify or expand on any part of the summary.

I apologize, but I do not have enough context to provide a useful summary based on the phrases you have provided. If you could give me a few sentences explaining the topic or concept, I may be able to summarize key ideas and themes.

Here is a summary of the key topics and themes in Technopoly by Neil Postman:

• The legend of King Thamus and the invention of writing. Thamus argues that writing will weaken memory and wisdom. This serves as a metaphor for technology’s effects.

• The rise of tool-using cultures and their belief systems integrated with their tools and traditions. These cultures saw tools as means to ends.

• The rise of technocracy in the 19th century U.S. Technocracy sees technology and progress as ends in themselves. There is an uncritical belief in efficiency, objectivity, and standardization.

• The rise of technopoly in the 20th century. Technopoly features the submission of all social institutions and traditions to the sovereignty of technique and technology. Technopoly devalues history, tradition, and everything not serving the ideology of efficiency, calculability, and rationality.

• The effects of advanced medical technology and computer technology. These technologies reshape ideas about health, humanity, and the mind. They promote mechanistic views of human beings.

• The defenses against technopoly have broken down. These include religion, tradition, high culture, and print culture. Technopoly rids us of symbolic richness and depth.

• Scientism as the technopoly’s belief system. It promotes the idea that the scientific method is the only valid way to solve problems and acquire knowledge.

• The resistance to technopoly involves loving techniques for their own sake, cultivating depth of meaning, and maintaining traditions and social institutions not governed by technopoly.

The key themes are the threat of technology to culture and humanity, the loss of meaning and depth in technopoly, and the possibility of resistance through cultivating meaning, social institutions, and a loving view of technology. Overall, Postman offers a sobering warning about technopoly and a call to cultivate humanity’s highest traditions.