Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!rdnelson
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,comp.cog-eng,sci.psychology
Subject: Re:  Electronic vs. Written Literacy (was Effects of poor writing?)
Summary: Who has control?
Message-ID: <8166@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 5 May 89 19:16:18 GMT
References: <4352@ttidca.TTI.COM> <3893@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <2018@trantor.harris-atd.com> <2679@puff.cs.wisc.edu> <2031@trantor.harris-atd.com>
Reply-To: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson)
Followup-To: sci.lang
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 23
Xref: utzoo sci.lang:4460 comp.cog-eng:1083 sci.psychology:1787

In article <2031@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes:
>     I was thinking about this also.  I think what may be more important about
>written media is that they are more "permanent".  One way to exploit a person
>is to present them with constantly changing messages, so that they can't
>remember what you said before.  If you are literate, you can write it down and
>save it away.  I suppose you could record visual things, but that is harder.

I suspect all this speculation is moot in the face of evolving
societies, but will add a couple of points anyway:
1.  Written and even printed material can be produced easily, even in
hostile environments -- eg totalitarian governments. 
2.  All of the competition depends on a healthy technological culture,
and can be trashed by pulling the plug -- not so for books and papers.
 
On a more positive note, and perhaps more relevant to psychology, it
is probably demonstrable that writing per se helps make people more
creative and clear-minded, more successful, more nearly actualized,
than they would be without the excercise.  

Other references would be more appropriate, but didn't McCluhan do this 
general topic years ago?

Roger Nelson   rdnelson@phoenix.princeton.edu