TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: Re[2]: Programming Tools -- How Prevalent Are They? - LONG ( (#92701
Subject:Re: Re[2]: Programming Tools -- How Prevalent Are They? - LONG ( (#92701 From:Bill Burns <wburns -at- MICRON -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 31 May 1996 15:56:50 -0600
31-MAY-1996 15:34:06.99
> For example, why would the average person be interested in math or
> science when our culture has planted the techno-dweeb image so firmly
> in his or her mind--not only using television and film, but in the
> very concepts of what constitutes masculinity and femininity?
> Obviously, the average learner's attention is going to be lessened if
> they've learned that the culture doesn't value whatever the learner is
> being taught.
>Not being a Gen-Xer (I'm a fat, balding, overaged hippie, myself) I probably
>shouldn't comment. But implicit in the above statement is an attitude that
>really knots my shorts.
>Ever notice how our deficiencies are never our fault? They're always someone
>else's fault. Our bad habits are just that -- ours. We may have had the
>benefit of good teachers, but we still learned 'em ourselves, we did, and we
>orta be proud of 'em, and not be so quick to credit someone else.
Not what I intended to convey, but I can see why you could have seen it. I'm
not necessarily saying that the things they pay attention to are bad--they're
just different. Also, the concept that television alone had this impact and no
other factors contributed is spurious. Could they possibly run a double-blind
study and support such a claim? Can they do any more than claim that a
correlation exists? Do other correlations exist? If so, could they have had
more of an impact on the attention spans of the generation?
I was trying to suggest that there may be many contributing factors aside from
the "televisual-lobotomy" theory. And I also don't like the assumption that
Gen X = slackers with short attention spans.
Now--what were you saying a minute ago?
;-)
Bill Burns
Assembly Training and Documentation Supervisor
WBURNS -at- MICRON -dot- COM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post Message: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Get Commands: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "help" in body.
Unsubscribe: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "signoff TECHWR-L"
Listowner: ejray -at- ionet -dot- net
