I’ve received a number of comments about yesterday’s post, wondering what exactly about the use of software to visualize viruses was intriguing to me. Well, technically there weren’t a large number of comments. Actually there were none. But that doesn’t change the fact that I am very interested in discussing what was so interesting about that post.
Computer graphics are changing many aspects of our lives. Perhaps the most obvious is in the entertainment industry. There are very few movies nowadays that don’t employ CGI, and there are almost depressing numbers of advertisements that do the same. What interests me, however, is how computer graphics will change the way we communicate and learn.
My friend, Tom West, wrote a book—In the Mind’s Eye— a number of years ago dealing with how “visual thinkers” will benefit from the increasing use of computer graphics and other forms of visual communication. His particular interest is dyslexia, and his contention is that in a world where words are increasingly replaced by images, dyslexics (many of whom are excellent visual thinkers) will be at a distinct advantage.
Before dealing with this hypothesis, it might be instructive to think about the evolution of the literate society. Although many take it for granted today that reading is essential for success, this obviously is a relatively recent change in western society. Until about 200 years ago, the average person did not need to know how to read. The skills that most people needed to survive (working in the trades, farming, etc.) arguably involved more visually-based skills. Once formal education became the norm, however, advancement at nearly all levels of society became dependent on the ability to read. As a consequence, a number of people who had difficulty learning to read following standard instruction were sometimes left behind.
So back to Tom’s book. I don’t know that I agree with all of Tom’s arguments. For example, I’m not convinced that visual and literate learning styles are mutually exclusive. Nor am I convinced that the percent of dyslexics that are conceptual visual thinkers are any greater than that of the general population. But that doesn’t change the fact that there are a significant number of people who are primarily visual processors. So if we are moving to time when increasing amounts of information are conveyed visually and conceptually, will that favor a different subset of individuals than have been favored for the past two centuries in western literate societies?
There is certainly truth to the adage that a picture can be worth a grand worth of words. I cringe when I am forced to sit through poorly designed PowerPoint slide shows that are heavy on the text, especially when well-considered graphical elements can reveal precise information in one glance. But it is hard to imagine a time when reading and text-based analyses will be obsolete. I will concede that it is possible that I, like so may of us left-brain-semi-literate-straight-ahead-no nonsense types, lack imagination. Yet it seems clear that there are certain types of data that will always be best communicated through text. Much in the same ways that both movies and books can each tell stories perfectly, there will always be room for both types of communication. What will most fascinating, however, is to see how far computer graphics can enable us to encroach into traditional text-based areas. And who among us will thrive with these new tools?
(And how bad is it that I didn’t use any graphics in this post at all?)
” I don’t know that I agree with all of Tom’s arguments. For example, I’m not convinced that visual and literate learning styles are mutually exclusive. Nor am I convinced that the percent of dyslexics that are conceptual visual thinkers are any greater than that of the general population. But that doesn’t change the fact that there are a significant number of people who are primarily visual processors.”
I agree with your statement above and your post as it addresses one of my pet peeves and that is reading posts from dyslexics that say ” I’m dyslexic, this is how dyslexia affects me, therefore this is what dyslexia is.”. My annoyance being caused by the fact that dyslexics are individuals with individualistic differences and that descriptions that limit dyslexia to any one dyslexic’s personal experiences are going to be misleading for most dyslexics.
The media also promotes the concept of dyslexia as having one cause. Over time I have read a series of ” Dyslexia is caused by” articles. These articles are usually generated by the media from reading reports that a researcher has studied an area of the brain and seen differences between groups of dyslexics and non-dyslexics. What is left out in the articles is that the data overlaps between the dyslexics and non dyslexics with the result that a individual can not be identified as dyslexic or not by those methods.
While perhaps not as exciting, I think the tide of dyslexia research is starting to change to the concept that individual dyslexics have individual problems. The recent study that compared Chinese and English dyslexics concluded that the difference in differences might have meant that some English dyslexics might not have been dyslexic in Chinese and some Chinese dyslexics might have not been dyslexic in English. Sounds individualistic to me .
Left by John Hayes on April 15th, 2008
Glenn, reading your posts made me feel that I should be writing some erudite, weighty comment rather than the usual facebook/myspace-yo-I-exist-you-exist-we-all-exist-digital drivel (digital existentialism?) You make your readers work, I see. I’m not sure I’ll be reaching the bar you set. For example, I really had to work to find a reason to use a word like existentialism. That said, very cool blog. Intriguing musings on interesting topics. Love your picture, too! I’ll be checking in periodically. What about linking your blog to our Ning site?
Yo! (See, I’m still down here with the digital masses.)
CDC
PS: Does Gordon know the derivation of JB?
Left by Carolyn on July 2nd, 2008
Not all of the posts are supposed to be challenging, and some may be considered by some to be just silly. But I love hearing comments on anything that strikes your fancy.
I don’t know if Gordon knows the derivation of JB. He may.
Left by Glenn on July 2nd, 2008