Metaphor Making and Small Talk in the Staff Room

It was interesting to read A Whole New Mind and Technopoly in the same day and even more interesting that both authors  referred to metaphors.  Metaphor -- understanding one thing in terms of something else-- is an important part of creating symphony according to Pink.   And yet Postman almost seems to imply that the metaphor of the machine as human is a negative thing, or at least one he resents.  It was amazing me to realize how many metaphors we use when comparing computers to people or something alive:

• people programming or deprogramming themselves
• our brains as a piece of "hard wiring" capable of "retrieving data"
• a "virus" that makes computers sick, which can be "virulent" and "contagious"
• "worms" which attack computers
• computers which become "infected" and may need to be "quarantined" or "sterilized"
• programmers who needed to develop "vaccines" so that computers could be "inoculated

If I didn't know better, I would think computers had become things of life and could think and have meaning for themselves. In fact, I think we are sometimes guilty of that.  We do stop thinking and give the computer way too much credit.  We have all heard the statement, "the computer shows" or "the computer has determined, although I am not prepared to give those statements the same credibility as "It is God's will."  One of my questions this week this is this:  Are we still guilty of creating the computer as human, or worse yet, as God, or have we moved past that and realized its fallibility and its shortcomings? 

My other questions is this:  I wondered if Postman was correct when he stated, "There are, for example, no 'great computerers,' as there are great writers, painters, or musicians.  There are 'great programs' and great programmers,' but their greatness lies in their ingenuity either in simulating a human function or in creating new possibilities of calculation, speed, and volume."  Would Postman and Pink also argue about this?  Is Postman lessening the importance of right brain thinking? 

Well enough questions for one post!  Actually I have one more question, which is actually probably just a pet peeve of mine.  On page 137 Postman writes, "There seems to be a market for useless information. . . . It is surprising how frequently such blather will serve as the backbone of conversations which are essentially meaningless."  As I read that I couldn't help think of most of the conversations that happen during coffee time or lunch time in our staff room.  I must admit, small talk is not my forte, but it seems that as educators we should be able to get past the "blather" that often makes up the bulk of our conversations.  Does this irritate anyone else, or is there something wrong with me?