My Thoughts and Reflections on James Gleick’s, The Information: A History, A Theory, a Flood. Chapters 4-6

     Chapter 4 starts off being about numbers.  Most of this goes right over my head, as numbers and I are not friends.  I think I see the authors point.  Numbers have become like words, conveying information.  A number in a table could tell you the weight of a thing just as if someone had written in out in a sentence.  A table made it faster to find the information than reading through a paragraph to find the relevant sentence.  I will admit that I skimmed most of this chapter and even skipped a few parts. The mathematics were over my head, and I felt like I was missing the point of all this mathematical history.  

     Chapter 5 was better, no more numbers. The history of the telegraph is interesting. I especially liked when he explained how the word “network” started.  I never realized that it dated back that far.  Of course, it didn’t mean quite the same thing as today, since they were referring to how the wires above their heads resembled a net.  It is interesting to think that a word that was born from visual appearance now refers to the invisible connection of devices.  A network is no longer something you can physically see but one can conjure up a mental image of, say, a computer network.

     I also found it very interesting that in order to use the telegraph more efficiently people were encouraged to shorten their sentences, and even abbreviate words.  This is just like what has been happening with text messages and instant messaging.  Back then, laugh out loud would also have been lol!  They were also encouraged to substitute numbers for letters which reminds me of leet speak which I brought up in my previous post.

     Then chapter 6 goes back to math and now paradoxes, and my head explodes. Luckily, that was not what the whole chapter was about; the next part was about the telephone.  My roommate also started to clean our apartment, so I didn’t have to clean up my own exploded head. That was nice. 

     I found it interesting when the author said that the telegraph dealt in numbers and facts, and the telephone dealt in emotions.  Our cellphones today deal in both. How many times have you taken a text message out of context because you don’t know the emotion behind the sender? I myself have done it quite often. Sometimes I will read a tone of voice in a message that the sender did not intend. Perhaps I was just transferring my own feelings and emotions onto that message.  When I use my phone to make a call instead of text, then I can actually hear what emotion is being conveyed without having to guess.  We now have both options in one small device, which is pretty impressive.

     There was more math and physics and scientific/mathematical theory after the interesting bits about the telephone. I could really do without those parts, but I’m sure there are other readers who enjoy it more than I.