This week we were presented with two articles. One was by author Ann N. Amicucci, titled, “Four Things Social Media Can Teach You About College Writing— And One Thing It Can’t.” The other article was authored by Travis Bradbury, titled, “Multitasking Damages Your Brain And Career, New Studies Suggest.” Amicucci took the principle of distraction— existing within social media— to ensure her readers had a platform to refer to steps to use those social media principles when it comes to applying knowledge and tact with college writing. As in the title, Amicucci lists four guidelines for college students to bear in mind. Bradbury took a negative approach with his article— asserting that those who multitask are worse off than those who do not multitask.
With Amicucci’s article, there is a sense that college students’ brains function around distraction. Her article does not approach this so as to detract from it. Its approach was to use a common disruptor in the middle of tasks to call attention to the fact that all of these aspects, and more, can be applied to professional settings. Our ethos as we post online or follow others online can be applied in such a polished setting as a college classroom. As for her guidelines, I thought they were interesting. Human interaction in the modern day is seldom tailored in a format that is not shameful to a student, or framed in a detestable light— as if it is something we need to keep away from as we cannot learn from it. I agree after reading not only Amicucci’s article but others previously.
With Bradbury’s article, he approached a subject that exists in this world dryly and coldly. I had less of an appreciation for the “evidence” he had to show for as he was making a claim so controversially. Something else that caught my eye was his evidence wasn’t based on a generous demographic. What this would have meant was experimenting on all types of brains in different areas of the world. He only set his strong ideologies in the UK. When it boils down to productivity, Americans may have certain advantages. Bradbury did not extend his claim as far as other regions. To make so bold of a claim without analyzing factors as large as where a person surrounds themselves is a misstep. I also believe his claims to be dramatic and overstated. When he discussed damage to the brain, I couldn’t process it how he would expect his readers to process it.
There is a clear lack of a connection between Amicucci’s and Bradbury’s arguments. First, Bradbury did not compose his argument for the betterment of a college student’s mind— rather for the belittlement of it. Amicucci is similar to Lamott in that the recognition of the struggle of the minds of the college demographic, in their writing, is present. Bradbury and Dila are short and cold in their responses to general thought processes. No one would account for Amicucci’s or Lamott’s advice if what Bradbury and Dila noted are true. There is a surface level understanding at best of the thought process by Dila and now Bradbury.
Leave a Reply