Blog Post 13

Hopefully I'm not getting this last post in too late to be counted. Anyway, I'd go back and write about something in one of the books we read, but I think I hit everything and I may have consolidated the two days of Things Fall Apart readings into one post. Regardless, I figured that I'd write a thirteenth post about something we've discussed within class these past few weeks.

So, I've decided to write some thoughts about the most recent article we covered: "Wide Web of diversions gets laptops evicted from lecture halls". Considering the degree program I'm in, I don't think removing laptops and computers from the classroom is a feasible option. Beyond DTC, I don't think it's really going to accomplish anything. As was noted in class, a distracted or daydreaming student is distracted and daydreaming regardless of whether a laptop is present. If there's no laptop to use and a student is disinterested they're going to read a book, do work for another class, read a magazine, draw, or just space out. That's what I do if I show up to class, am not "into it" that day, and forget my laptop. The laptop's not doing it, it's a combination of personal stuff on the student's side and how engaging the material is. To pin the potential distraction of the laptop on poor performance is a bit absurd and I feel the following quote from the article demonstrates this:

One recent semester, Siebert tracked the grades of 17 student laptop addicts. At the end of the term, their average grade was 71 percent, "almost the same as the average for the students who didn't come at all."

To me, this says more about how a student who doesn't care or is disinterested in a given class is likely to score lower rather than laptops being some evil boogeyman. Now, had laptop "addicts" scored lower than the absent students, I'd say they had something, but this just shows that a lack of engagement manifested in two different ways.

I think laptops and connected digital devices have become an easy and visible scapegoat for the established pedagogy's in ability to effectively adapt to and engage students who have been bombarded with media since birth. It's much easier to eliminate "distractions" from the class and feel like something's been done than to reconfigure how one teaches even if the removal doesn't have any actual result.

I realize that constant use of the internet to find opinions diminishes/eliminates one's ability to demonstrate critical thought, but at the same time not using the Internet and laptops is potentially hampering an engaged student's ability to find resources that could help them comprehend the in class material or find secondary material that may add to class discussion and discovery.

I don't think that laptops and Internet connected devices "ruin" the user's experience in class or makes them unable to focus on class; however, I do somewhat agree with Sieber's theory on a "cone of distraction." Although a disengaged student is a disengaged student and they can do whatever they want while they're distracted, I also feel like the student can indirectly become a distraction to students who might otherwise be largely engaged, but this could happen with any medium (book, newspaper, magazine). However, due to the greater visibility of laptop screens vs the relatively small size of print more engaged students could find their attention diverted by the actions of another.

In summation, getting rid of laptops is silly because you only end up shifting the diversion to another place, which still isn't on the lecture or professor.

Everybody's Here! What's Next?

This post doesn't really talk about what's next, but rather the last chapters of Here Come's Everybody. Honestly, I don't know what's next, but I kind of plan to look at that in my second issue paper; anyhow, on to the text.

So, chapter 10 largely deals with what we were discussing last week, which is lower transaction costs of creation in a digital world and how that's impacting the world. Our discussions in this class and others, such as DTC 475, have covered connections regarding lowered cost (and thus risk) online and how that has encouraged discovery and exploration without tremendous fear of failure. Certainly the psychological effects of failing in an endeavor still exist online, but due to things like relative anonymity and far spread responsibility much of this impact is mitigated. Financial costs associated with experimentation, distribution, and collaboration are also greatly reduced through the internet and web. As a result, the web becomes a place where people can try things and innovate in ways that would not be feasible, practical, or even possible in the physical world. If something fails, it's not a big deal beacuse there is no tangible investment in "the thing" and the results/lessons learned from the effort put into the failed project can be quickly applied to a new project that can start up almost immediately. A process of throwing things against the wall to see what sticks becomes possible online.

Chapter 11 focuses on a variety of web tools that enable connections and collaboration between people, but the overriding issue present in this chapter was essentially about how groups online no longer abide by traditional organizational rules. The top-down approach doesn't work. Groups online don't respond to a scenario in which they're told to do something a certain way to accomplish a goal. Online communities/cultures are increasingly dependent on democratic decision making where people have more equitable purchase in what and how to do things. Yes, there are still leaders and whatnot, but communities working on thing X are free to move to projects A, B, and C if things aren't going the way they want. People online (and eventually offline) expect greater involvement in making decisions about what they're creating rather than just following a word from on high. Essentially the way things are explained, approached, and received have been fundamentally changed by the ability to interact online.

Bigger and Faster

Chapters seven, eight, and nine focused on the growing scale, efficiency (?), and power of individual social networks and social networking tools online.

Shirky used several examples to illustrate how social networks can relatively easily be leveraged to organize many people around a common issue and then affect change surrounding that issue. Although political action played heavily into chapter seven, he did use an example that was easier to relate to. He noted how a student(s) who were upset over HSBC's attempts to attract students to credit cards/accounts with good rates and benefits created a group to discuss alternative banks and voice their discontent on Facebook. Thanks to the tremendous number of people using facebook and the Friend of a Friend linking/suggestions employed within facebook, the rate of growth sped up exponentially as more people joined this group. Facebook allowed this disparate group of disgruntled people to quickly form into a critical mass which then allowed them to act as one unit to accomplish the goal of finding a new bank that they all liked or get HSBC to change their practices, which is what ultimately happened.

Even though the proliferation of productive activities is increasing through the use of net tools and social networks, Shirky also notes that the amount of chaff posted online is increasing as well. People aren't just posting momentous, transformative, and intriguing ideas; they're also posting what they ate for breakfast, when the woke up, went to bed, etc.

Although social networking tools have the potential for tremendous good and organization, they also run the risk of overwhelming users and viewers with a sea of pointless information. However, thanks to our own internal psychological filters and filters embedded in the tools, we can tailor who and what we interact with online in order to maximize what we can get out of the experience offered through social networks. Granted this does create a level of separation, but these concentrated social networks can also create connections to other concentrated social networks without burying users in information.

Here Comes Every Voice

I kind of feel like I keep repeating myself when I write these posts because they often revolve around the shortsightedness of "the establishment" and the democratizing effects of technology. And chapters 4 through 6 of Here Comes Everybody continues that trend, but in the context of a more unified goal.

These three chapters, specifically four and five, focus on user-generated content and how it is replacing or at the very least supplementing content generated by the traditional producers who typically have power. As that producer/consumer balance shifts, it seems like individuals are gaining more power and ability to influence the world. In chapter four, Shirky largely talks about Myspace, but I feel like that example could be applied to any blog that focuses on community/user generated posts/feedback. He notes larger blogs, but those seem to be less interesting than individual or small community generated content. I feel like those larger blogs are just reinterpretations/remediations of traditional newspapers, magazines, and television. Although these large online media sources are pulling power away from the physical/broadcast sources, they're outnumbered and potentially less effective than these smaller zones. I say this because these larger blogs may be approached with the same skepticism and disdain associated with traditional media. Smaller bloggers seem to have a sense of more intimacy and truthfulness and as a result may be shared and spread amongst friends more readily and undermine broader communication methods.

With these groups and tools in place, we now have the opportunity to actually influence the world around us and force change in other arenas that we would not have with these singular, but loosely organized mini-broadcasters that seem to be cropping up as more and more people explore the less restrictive online space.

Dwindling Expertise?

The first three chapters of Shirky's Here Comes Everybody heavily focus on the idea of do it yourself (DIY) like movements and actions that have been enabled by the web. In chapters one and two, Shirky heavily relies on the example of Ivanna's lost/stolen Sidekick and how the backend technology associated with the phone gave Ivanna the means to become a kind of private investigator or police officer and track down who may have had her phone. Additionally, her friend Evan and his understanding of the web gave the both of them the tools to then pin point who had the phone and determine the best course of action to take.

The story of Evan and Ivanna's search for the phone and some sort of justice outside the realm of the rules and restrictions of the physical world help highlight what chapter three seemed to start covering and that was the diminishing necessity of "experts" and even the potential for amateurs to supplant experts thanks to the distributed resources and inexpensive tools that the web affords. In chapter 3, on page 61 specifically, Shirky uses the example of amateur bloggers to demonstrate how the Net Generation has used these factors of increased access and inexpensive/powerful tools to undermine, yet indirectly support traditional journalist/experts.

The journalists, due to being jaded or part of the "system," missed or ignored comments made by a public official, Trent Lott, at a birthday party for a Strom Thurmond, whose early political career was founded on segregation. Outside the context of Thurmond's past, the comment simply seems to be a kind comment for a friend or revered colleague and the traditional journalists largely seemed to take it as that. However, a network of amateur bloggers noted that the comment seemed to advocate segregation and racism when one considered the context of Thurmond's career. Traditional journalists didn't have the time or "bandwidth" to pore of Lott's comments, but the "amateur" bloggers were able to do this.

As a result of a combination of resources, knowledge, and fervor, the bloggers commented enough on this seemingly innocuous line that it became a worthwhile news item for the traditional media. Blogger interest in this piece not only brought the issue to the attention of the traditional media, but also revealed other distasteful aspect's of Lott's persona/character that had cropped up in the past.

Consumerism

Consumption and the Net Generation becomes quite an odd topic because according to Tapscott, we’re more distanced from the traditional modes of product advertisement (unsubstantiated claims of quality, repetition, product placement, etc), but there seem to be more avenues that create deeper connections with Net Geners. No longer is someone just limited to putting the message out there as often as possible and hoping people listen to it, but now advertisers can actually engage at a much closer level with individual consumers and it is those companies who tend to build credibility with the Net Generation.

I think this is true and I can relate this to an experience I recently had. It’s odd because it simultaneously bolsters and contradicts some of the shopping norms Tapscott notes. It runs a bit contradictory to the Integrity norm because I personally experienced how HEAVILY companies moderate their reviews. Although Tapscott argues that no amount of spin can sway the net generation, if the company controls the pipeline, they can make things appear however they want, so their spin works by default within that context. However, Tapscott discusses this issue outside of the company’s space, but when shopping user reviews on shopping sites , whether owned by the manufacturer or not, are considered to be fair and accurate. This could also play into Tapscott’s norm because the company realizes the power of user commentary on their products. At any rate, I purchased a hoodie over a year ago and put it in the closet within a month or so because the seams started to inexplicably come apart and pocket separated from the inside of the hoodie which effectively created a hole in the pocket. Anyway, I recently came across the hoodie again and since I never contacted customer service, I figured that I would at least let people know about the quality issues I encountered. Within hours of posting my negative review, I received an e-mail informing me that my review had been reviewed and was not posted because the company would like to see what they could do to “make things right.” After a series of e-mails, I received a brand new hoodie in the mail just because the company didn’t want the five star rating on their product to take a hit.  This also plays into Tapscott’s speed norm.

And this leads to the Collaboration norm. Although I knew and still know that their main aim was to keep their rating/reputation for the product high (in order to maintain the norms of integrity and scrutiny), they reached out to me and asked for additional feedback so they could make sure to change their processes/design in an effort to make sure this has been resolved or doesn’t continue to happen. Again, I know that this is more or less a move to placate me so I don’t run down their product elsewhere, just like with traditional customer service; however, they positioned their inquiries using this norm in order to engage me and make it feel like I was part of their quality improvement process and was actually making things better. This not only got me to send more feedback than I would have otherwise, but I also felt more inclined to let them make things right rather than just writing them off

.

So, this greatly changes the accountability companies have to individual consumers and vice versa. Consumers are willing to  completely write off companies if they’re willing to write off an individual consumer or issue. However, companies currently and will increasingly work with instead of in opposition to customers in order to ensure they can gain more access than their competitors. Thanks to the easy access to other purchasing options and alternate sources of opinions about product XYZ, the entire consumer-producer relationship is more evenly balanced than ever before.

Expertise

In the early pages of part two of Grown Up Digital, Tapscott explores the shifting relationship between student and teacher when Internet and web resources are thrown into the equation. This is a fascinating discussion because it not only reflects what is going on right now and where things are headed, but also completely changes who or what we consider an expert.

Traditionally, teachers are considered experts in the classes they lead; however, with online resources anyone who understands the fundamental concepts of a subject may very well be able to use the pool of information that exists in the ether to build upon that foundation and approximate "expert level" knowledge by augmenting things with these digital resources. I don't think this completely changes the role of teachers or experts, but it certainly changes the student/teacher relationship because both are "students" of the digital resources and the teachers are facilitating access, filtering, or remediating that information for the students. I suppose this forces experts to become more expert in using this information rather than just knowing and sharing facts. The building process no longer stops at the expert level; in order to stay ahead of non-experts, experts have to do something with the information they have.

Much like the change from orality to literacy, we're starting to see a change in how information is perceived and used. In fact, one might also be able to argue that we are reverting (not in a bad way) to some of the traditions of oral cultures in the way there could be increased engagement with the author/text on a more direct or immediate level. If we have areas to reach the authors of information online, we directly change that information through our questions. Maybe this is the next step, a return to the core benefits of orality, but in a different context/medium.

What is It?

The idea that “Net Geners” are inherently more skeptical is demonstrates a rather interesting and fundamental shift in the way society does and will approach information in the future. I noticed that there was a fair amount of skepticism about things online and amongst my friends, but I kind of assumed that this was always the case in the post-war era. I guess I’ve always taken the idea that people check things out and do some of their own vetting before believing them for granted.

I suppose since it (Internet, web, digital technology, 100+ channel cable, etc) has been an everyday part of life since my early years of school (maybe even before school), that I never really gave much thought to how people perceived the accuracy of information in previous generations. Of course, there are exceptions to this especially considering the ridiculous hoaxes and internet lore I hear from some friends, but that seems to be a rather small exception. Examples of this would be celebrity deaths and rumors of international happenings. Thinking about it now, if one was to look at most things they heard with disbelief and required verification before the proliferation of the web and other online resources, they’d never get anything done because they’d be making calls and reading endless reams of newspaper daily.

As Tapscott mentions, myself and most of my peers either look for news articles that support or refute the claim or check online hoax databases like Snopes.com. Not only does there seem to be an innate desire to get to the root of something, but the fact that I can check thing XYZ and know an answer within moments is very appealing. Knowing/learning about that one thing might not make me “smarter,” but it certainly makes me feel more clever and aware of what’s going on around me rather than having to rely on one distant authority to share an answer with me when it’s ready to do so. I suppose one might say that having access to that information gives individuals a sense of control or understanding over an increasingly chaotic world.

I can find multiple resource to pin down a more accurate answer on my own schedule. To go back to the title of this post “What is It?,” I kind of remember when the Segway scooter was nearing its launch, but it was only referred to as “It” or “Ginger” (I think). There was all this hype about how tech luminary X (it might have been Apple’s Steve Jobs) reportedly said that It was the greatest thing ever and would change the way cities are designed and it would change how people interact with each other, etc. At the time it seemed like all the tech blogs, news programs, magazines, etc, were ready to jump on this bandwagon and there was little to no skepticism about the whole thing, but my friends and I immediately started looking for alternative sources of information online, which included web forums, patent/trademark documents, etc., that gave some different opinions or information about what the device really was.

We didn’t believe the hype surrounding the device even though we never found any definitive information until after it launched, but we used this incredibly common tool (the web) to try to figure out what was what and sort fact from fiction without the involvement of traditional media.

On the other hand, there are times that I have found myself paradoxically relying on these same traditional sources to confirm or deny information found online. Although the web holds a ton of information that can be used to explore topics at leisure, there are still times when traditional news broadcasts or print media are used to supplement or affirm things found in cyberspace.

It is kind of interesting that although this is the "Net Generation," it feels very much like a hybrid information that relies on both spheres of information.

A Question of Truthiness (Makeup Post)

Both of the authors we've covered up to this point (Ong and Baron) have at least touched if not focused on the truthfulness of written communication in the absence of the author. However, Baron explores the potential the Internet has to instill a sense of honesty or truth back into written communication by giving readers and authors a place to asynchronously interact and challenge/discuss things with one another. He uses the example of Facebook and various profile pages to examine the feasibility and reliability of such a "verified" space.

Baron points out that although social networking and interactive sites like Facebook bring back the discourse aspect of communication/rhetoric present in face-to-face and oral communication, there is no ability to ascertain whether or not anyone is actually who they say they are or are presenting true facts. The Internet acts as a facilitator of discourse, but the inability to really engage and challenge the author remains because the author is still this ambiguous/anonymous thing pushing information or the idea of themself. On page 185 of A Better Pencil Baron talks about Facebook and the profile pages of people such as Joseph Stalin, Abbie Hoffman, and George W. Bush that have an air of reality thanks to Facebook's "claim that people on Facebook are who they say they are and behave the way they do in the real world'"(185). Due to inaccurate information associated with the profile, the impossibility of that person creating a profile, or some other reason, these profiles, which are theoretically factual, are clearly not factual or true. If written communication through the Internet and Facebook in particular can't filter out obvious fiction, which is in essence unchallengeable since the author of record doesn't exist/isn't present, what hope is there that substantiative discourse can be restored through this relatively new medium of the Web?

It seems apparent that without stifling controls on freedom, how people are represented, and "tracked" online, it is nearly impossible to use the Web and the internet to restore the same level of veracity that was present in oral cultures and oral "texts." We can get close and achieve a variation of that level of truthfulness, but it requires that we all buy in to the understanding that any discourse we have with the author is merely a version of or an idea of "the author" and the author is available to us, but conceptually just as removed as they were when print was king.

Evolution of Writing Technology

It is interesting how the ideas of purity and authenticity keep cropping up as technology advances and has an impact on writing or at least the general perception of writing. Starting in the 20th century we see technology in general and specifically related to writing seemed to progress and alter the idea of text at a previously unprecedented rate. Ages passed with writing on stone and clay tablets, which eventually gave way to more portable means to produce text such as parchment, pencil, pen, and ultimately printing press.  In the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century we see the proliferation of a mobile printing press aka the typewriter, which was quickly usurped by the personal computer within a span of 100 years.

We have this small window in relatively recent history in which writing went from a very handicraft/artisanal process (in terms of actually putting text on a medium) to a very utilitarian and more accessible process. At one point writing was handled by the privileged and educated few, but with the mass availability of inexpensive paper, pencils, and pens, people were soon able to create seemingly a seemingly endless amount of work with relative ease and no specialized training (calligraphy, chiseling, etc). Ultimately taking us to where we are today with inconceivable numbers of people able to create and publish their own thoughts and ideas in digital format.

It seems that with the spread of writing (or more importantly content creation), the idea of purity or authenticity has consistently been an issue. As discussed by Ong and now Baron, Plato saw several problematic issues with writing as a standard practice and felt that not only would writing limit our reliance on memory, but also diminish the capacity for critical thought/argument because there is no way to discover the true meaning of any written text in the absence of the author. There may be some validity to Plato’s statement, but writing supplanted oral story telling as the most accepted way to share information. However, this idea of purity did not escape as cultures and societies continued to remediate communication. It seems that there is always this latent criticism that anything new is inherently less pure than the old way. Beyond the example of Plato, in “Thoreau’s Pencil” we see a more modern iteration of this idea in which Thoreau scoffed at the idea of the telegraph because there isn’t as much of a connection with the author of the message. This chapter continues to elaborate on how this idea persisted as the telephone replaced the telegraph, and how new forms of media have started to join these older options.

The older more artistic and labor-intensive forms of writing haven’t gone away, but they do seem to be held in higher esteem or assigned greater worth than “common” methods of writing even if the new and common methods are more efficient or appropriate. However, I’d argue that there’s not much use in worrying about these changes in how we write. I think a more appropriate response is to adopt these new writing technologies, which absorb some of the tedium of writing, and build upon these technologies and knowledge to more clearly focus on the intended message rather than the mechanics of production.

Culture Shock

I’ve read Things Fall Apart previously, but I was reading it from a related, but different perspective. So, going over events and themes found in the text using the filter of things discussed in class and written in Orality and Literacy resulted in a slightly different interpretation of the effects of technology and literacy on oral cultures.

While reading this as part of a class concerned with globalization, I came away with an impression of how wider cultural shifts arose from interaction and exchange with more technologically advanced and non-native cultures. As noted above, this is related to this class, but this time I tried to look at the aspects of and interplay between oral and literate languages/cultures.

I came away seeing many parallels between how the two systems worked, but I’ll try to focus a bit more on the differences in an effort to highlight the differences and/or impact that written language seemed to have.

Before reviewing the text, one of my first inclinations was to consider the dissemination of information between various groups. However, that seems the same if we take more advanced modes of transportation out of the picture. For example,  if something happens in village A in an oral culture, someone has to go to another tribe to spread the story and then that person either goes to the next village or lets someone from village B spread the info to village C and so. However, even with written information this sequential process still has to take place, but in theory the consistency of the message between points A and Z remains intact where there may be embellishment or whatnot.

While there isn’t an inherit “speed” in communicating information in literate societies, there is an improved fidelity from one step to another in the literate culture. It could be argued that this enhanced fidelity creates greater efficiency in explaining things or carrying out orders. If we look at page 89 of Things Fall Apart, we see how the literate culture (English) are able to wield power from afar through the presumed use of written accounts/orders (I realize how making an assumption in this case could be problematic, but it’s not an unreasonable assumption or one made completely outside the context of the story) by punishing (hanging) Umuofians who committed some transgression against the church. On the other hand, we see that the native Mbantans, who relied on oral communication, did not view messages that were passed from village to village with any seriousness. In fact, they viewed them as “fairy tales” because there was no immediate example to refer to nor did there appear to be any confirmation of the danger presented by the new government from elders or oracles in the tribe.

By building upon this idea of verisimilitude in written documents and its absence in “common” oral accounts, it may be possible to see a level of democratization (of authority and information) in the English culture. Granted, messages still had to come from a center of power, but the ability to communicate this authority via written document allows for the rapid designation of delegates to carry out and/or share information in the name of the king, church, etc. The natives featured in Things Fall Apart did not have this system because authority in the tribe could only be developed through a life of hard work and demonstrating success and wisdom, a process which obviously takes many years, if not generations. This means that not just anyone was able to communicate something and expect others to trust it; as a result we see how the English were able to take advantage of the Umuofians’ relative centralization of information and employ a greater level of decentralization to completely upset, destabilize, and disorganize the long held and carefully cultivated systems in an oral culture.

Matter of Time

I kind of feel like I am repeating myself in this blog post, but this feels like it is going to be more about the discrepancy/discrepancies between an oral and literate world. Not surprising considering that this is the intent of Ong’s argument, but it does make my posts feel redundant. However, in an effort to appear slightly more diverse, I’ll try to focus on Ong’s discussion of oral (memory) records vs. written.

Throughout the last half of the text, chapter 4 onward, Ong repeatedly touched on the isolation and intellectual disengagement from texts. He does not posit that texts are less intellectually stimulating or worse for intellectual discovery/discourse, but the reader is necessarily disengaged and cannot enter into discourse with the author.  This distance from the author is most obviously due to gaps in time or space. It is possible to read a text and agree, disagree, or “argue” with an author, but in literate cultures this moves into the realm of the abstract and has to reason things within one’s own mind or with one’s peers who are familiar with the same text. Literates are no longer presented with an opportunity to immediately interact with the primary author or orator and hash out new conclusions on the spot. Again, this isn’t a wholly negative situation because the advance of literacy allowed for the proliferation of additional documents which may support, refute, or otherwise build upon or contribute to a conversation that would not have otherwise been available.

Beyond changing the way literate cultures become involved and engage with new information, Ong also addresses how oral records had and in some cases still have more veracity than written.

Ong writes, “Witnesses were prima facie more credible than texts because they could be challenged and made to defend their statements” (95). This applies to the situation noted previously in which one can’t confront the person he disagrees with. We also see this hold over in our modern legal system where an individual’s spoken statement in court carries more weight than one that may be written.

 In the same section of the text, Ong also addresses how literacy ultimately shaped the conception of time in our own and other literate cultures. In oral cultures only the most scholarly or those individuals entrenched in a church were concerned with the specific year and/or where they fit in the wider timeline. However as record keeping evolved and engagement with these “distant” texts evolved most everyone became aware of a uniform time system and where they fit on that timeline. One could also argue that this led to the widespread ability or desire to abstract one’s future rather than living day to day. With the spread of technology and literacy things became a little more amorphous, but also finite. Ideas built upon previous ideas are increasingly ethereal, but things may be codified, organized, and otherwise delineated to give a sense of finality or what not.

Ong goes on to cover a ton of other topics in these final chapters (including something as simple, but important as how we scan things with our eyes), but I found the above points to be quite interesting and illustrative of how profound the spread of literacy has been in human society.

Writing, Orality, and Thought

These first three chapters were indeed dense. Not in a bad way, but after finishing chapter 3 I am left feeling that I need to “rest” like a bard and incorporate all these ideas into an existing framework. There is a lot of information and many topics to discuss, but I kept coming back to the overarching idea about how tremendously writing has effected not only the culture of literate societies, but thought processes in general.
As noted in class and in Orality and Literacy the presence of written words in is a relative aberration considering that thousands of languages exist, but only a couple hundred of those spoken languages have written counterparts. It is amazing out fundamentally the introduction of written words (technology) have irrevocably changed things (after all, we can’t unsee what we’ve already seen) and led those cultures with written language down a completely different conceptual path. In written cultures, there is obviously permanence to things once they have been committed to paper, stone, hard drive, etc, but the fact that technology has delivered this level permanence is relatively new and seems somewhat stifling in comparison.
Granted, one has the ability to refer to past works exactly as they were originally devised, there is the ability to store and build upon complex ideas that may have been lost in the oral record, and it could be argued that there is more “truth” or objectivity in written texts, but this greatly impacts an individual’s ability to filter information. Why filter things if we don’t need to remember them, because we can keep them all and review them as we please? However, this seems to take away a degree of dynamism from the language and thought. All the chaff is kept and written languages begin to hold on to irrelevant definitions, words, and concepts.
As noted above, writing provides a common framework so someone in the present can comprehend something from the past, but the static nature of texts makes this a questionable assessment. I write this because verbiage and context can change dramatically over time, but the original text remains the same without an orator/narrator to recontextualize that information and make it more accessible/understandable for their time and community. Depending on where and when a line was written and recorded, its meaning can vary greatly. In an oral society, there is someone to mediate this message and communicate the original intent even if the words differ.
 I’m not saying that oral cultures are better or worse, I happen to think that having an available written archive is incredibly advantageous, but purely oral languages have and had a much more fluid system that does not chain people to the concepts of the past like written languages seem to do. While there may be less truth and more subjectivity in the information shared in the society, orality allows for completely different thought processes and additional abilities to filter information that have traditionally been lost in written cultures, but are becoming increasingly important as technology and literacy evolve today and in the future.