Illustration by Guy Billout
To receive full credit, this blog assignment must be posted by Monday night, February 8th at midnight. If you post late, please email me your post directly at sdebross@uvm.edu as soon as you are able, and I'll give you partial credit.Please read Nicholas Carr's summer 2008 article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?," and then, at this thread below, answer the following questions:
1. IYOW, identify the thesis of Carr's article, in one sentence.
2. Describe TWO observations Carr makes about Google with which you agree, and TWO observations Carr makes about Google with which you disagree. Be clear and specific.
1. With the constant use of Google, the internet, and technology, we are all using these tools to figure out our problems and losing the ability to think for ourselves.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with the ideas that we are losing our ability to read long pieces of writing in books. I am guilty of skimming through articles and not being able to sit through a long book, and I hate that that is where we have come to today. I use to love to just sit down and read, but now it has become harder to just hold a book in my hands and read something for pleasure. I also agree with and find interesting that with text messaging, emails, and other sources we might be reading more than we did before when there is only television. They say that this is a different kind of reading, and it requires a different kind of thinking. With these short emails, texts, wall-posts etc. we might be reading a lot more, but it still isn’t as useful and informative as reading a book for your own interests. I disagree with the idea of our brains being supplemented, or replaced by an artificial intelligence. I don’t think we would be “better off”, and I don’t think it would be good. I would hate to always be connected and be able to find out anything at any given moment. We weren’t created to be run that way, and I hope that we never get to the point that that is the only way we can go and live by. I also disagree with the idea that people go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense. I don’t think that this is directly the case, and I know that I am not guilty of that. I still use the Internet to read articles on things I am interested, and I am able to read through them. But in a sense that must be true for people, like when writing a paper and just searching something in Google, and if the title seems legitimate, they can use it as a source and pick out a quote.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete#1 The instant access to information through the internet has potentially altered our mental patience.
ReplyDelete#2 Wait! What was I reading?... I have to say that I whole heartedly agree with Carr's observation of people's attention spans growing smaller. Although I was diagnosed with ADD back in the 80's I sometimes wonder if it is just that I am the victim of technological laziness. Definitely possible. The other point that I agree with him on is his uneasiness with the rapid way in which technology is growing. He mentions the Google guys and how they almost want to create an artificial intelligence system. That just seems creepy.
Where I differ with this reading is when the capacity of the human mind is brought into question. Socrates fears that the written word will make man less intelligent. Humans are like sponges, and when we read we often times take it all in. We compartmentalize all these facts and fictions in our minds for later use. The other thing that is mentioned in this article that I am on the fence about is whether or not filling us full of information can harm ourselves and our culture. On one hand I believe that we now have the ability to learn more about ours, and others traditions/cultures which can make us broader individuals. But then there is the side of me who believes that when your head is in a book or on a computer screen you can miss some of life's beauty.
1. New inventions related to literature have changed the way we read, write, and comprehend written materials; mostly in a negative way that causes people to have trouble reading and writing longer pieces of literature.
ReplyDelete2. I agree that people have more trouble performing longer tasks. One can see this all the time nowadays. I cannot sit down and do my math homework in one go, it isn’t emotionally stimulating enough for me so I have to do something else. This is similar to how one skims pages to get to the next big thing. I also find that sometimes I sit go back to what I was reading and don’t quite understand what I had read, because I had been partially skimming it. I also find that with web articles that I read on my own time I often read just the first two and last two paragraphs, because that is the most important parts.
I agree that are brains are programmed a certain way to literature. This relates a lot to the first aspect of this article I agreed with. The more we see and use this type of literature the more we adapt, such as me reading just the beginnings and ends. My Grandparents who have almost no exposure to online literature, or even magazines, and get all their readings from the newspaper or library complain about how newspapers are getting thinner. They aren’t surprised that newspapers aren’t doing as well anymore, because they are getting less in depth and the quality of the writing as gone down. My grandparents have no problem reading these long articles, but for a lot of younger people, they are used to the short online brief descriptions.
I disagree that this causes us to be more concise with our writing. I still find myself writing longer than I need to write and I am a big online news guy. I do tend to read books (mostly during the summer and breaks, because of lack of time during school), but I also read articles online every day. I find I often am lengthier than I need when I would ask a friend to correct my paper. They would cut so much out, that it almost wasn’t even me anymore. It wasn’t a paper written by me, but a paper that screamed this is what happened…end of story. I still don’t like that, and I often do find myself reading more than one article online of the same event so that I can get the full picture.
I disagree that we are losing our minds. If anything sometimes I feel sharper because I know more about what is going on. Sure, at the same time I feel as though I do have trouble with bigger and longer tasks, but if anything we are becoming trivia masters. This is useful and I believe it helps us in the short term, but less in the long-term.
The new speed of the web and faster access to information has changed our cognitive and attentional abilities.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Carr that it is scary to thinnk about the possibilities of Google changing our brain chemistry. When he mentioned having trouble concentrating on deep reading and long literature, it was frightening. Mostly because I was just experiencing difficulties reading my history textbook. I would also agree, and admire the Space Odyssey reference with the controlling nature of google. The site is almost comparitive to artifical intelligence. It compiles information faster than a human brain and can choose what we look at.
As far as rendering humans from reading real text ever I would disagree. Not everyone can read "War and Peace" cover to cover, that example is not a tell tale sign in my opinion. Maybe our ability to browse information will change making us speed readers but not too much. I would also disagree with the damaging nature of introductions and context pieces in newspapers and web-sites. This only goes with the faster pace of the web, and if people want to read the entire article nothing is stopping them.
1. The invention of the internet has altered the brains way of conceiving and processing information. Because of this, humans have a much shorter attention span and smaller capacity for obtaining lengthy scientific writings.
ReplyDelete2. Carr states, "Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives- or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts as the internet does today." The internet has indeed changed the way we do things in our everyday life. It has changed our educational and employment systems, creating an entirely new skill of computer networking. While I believe this as true, I very much disagree with Carr when he states taht people have a smaller attention span when it comes to reading online and that they can no longer read books or atricles longer than four paragraphs. This may be true for some people, but I can't see it in my own life as well for many of my peers. Infact, i prefer reading books and articles on printed paper; its easier to follow and I am able to take notes as I read. Also as a whole, book sales have not declined. Some people do not enjoy reading and have never had a longer attention span when it comes to reading. Maybe the internet did make some peoples attention spans shorter, I think that Carr specifically inserted people's responses who never really enjoyed reading in the first place.
I do agree with the fact that the development of the mechanical clock has made us stop listening to our natural instincts. Indeed our brain changed with the creation and understanding of time and has thus changed with the invention of machines adn computers. Our thought processes and brain reactions have been forced to change over time and will continue to change.
Lastly, what I disagreed with most was when the article stated, "The more pieces of information we can "access" and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers". Infact, I think this to be the opposite. I can't tell you how many times I am debating and conversing with my friends and we can't remember a certain fact or the name of a movie title. Our first response is "Google it!" Now that most people have internet access from their phone this is easier now more than ever before. Instead of making us more knowledgable it's almost as if we no longer have to be because we can always access any information we forget. It's as if the computer remembers things for us so we dont have to.
Thesis - overuse of the internet has diminished our brain capacitance and focus ability.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that people will skim articles, webpages and books. I find it extremely difficult to remain in full focus while reading a book. However I marvel at my Grandmother who can read a book for hours and hours on end. Perhaps it was not a good idea to get her a computer.
Though I don’t like the thought of it, I have to agree that the internet is reprogramming our brains. Being a nursing major I learn everyday how sensitive our brains are to just about everything. Everything around us affects our brain even if only slightly, and with the internet being part of our entire lives now, it most certainly must be changing our brains.
I disagree with the fact that he said that what Google is trying to do is ambitious and admirable. I think Google’s goal of making an artificial intelligence out of their search engine is ridiculous. The decline in the ability to use the library is tragic. We should be trying to get people’s brains back to place of great learning capacity, not to a place where they rely on the ‘smarter than humans’ Google for all the answers.
I am also conflicted with whether or not I agree or disagree with his “worrywart” opinion on everything. Yes I do think we need more books and less Google. Yes I do think our brains are being rewired, which is altogether unsettling. However, I wonder how extreme it is? Do the benefits outweigh the brain changes we are having or are we really just going to end up like machines?
(1) Thesis: the human brain has begun to devolve in its capacity to sponge useful information from long format sources, and that the internet and instant media sources are the responsible for the creation of mental disorder's like ADHD.
ReplyDelete(2) I agree with Carr on the subject of Google's influence in the world's inability to focus and develop skills in reading literature in its totality and then picking out the key information. It is common knowledge that on college campuses around the country, students are using Wikipedia, and Google, to do most of the work for them, when in the age without computers, one had to read a book from cover to cover to truly understand a subject in its totality. Even as I type this right now, I did not capitalize Wikipedia or Google, and my computer's spell check let me know that they are meant to be capitalized.
I also agree with Carr on the idea that our brains are so malleable that this new form of research and learning, has retooled our brains capacity and even the manner in which we develop ideas and process information. I really enjoyed the excerpt on Friedrich Nietzsche and the way in which the technology of the typewriter, changed the manner in which he processed his words, perhaps its the non-personal touch of the keys rather than the pen to the page. I personally prefer writing things out before I type them, because I feel I have better control and develop better thoughts when I am writing freehand, rather than staring at a white screen trying to create a cognitive thought.
I do not however agree, and I am not sure he was actually saying this, that the nature of our current difficulties with reading and paying attention, can be blamed completely on the technology of today. Although, I do agree that it plays a large part in this general malaise, I believe that there are other factors which must be taken into account. Things like what we teach our children to appreciate, the importance of the past, and the passing down of generations of ideas, culture, and technology. Our separation from our heritage, and the replacement of the personal, all play enormous factors in our ability to connect and focus in today's technological world. We don't know what it was like without the internet. Instead of practicing cursive writing, we are having kids learn to write on keyboards. Its all connected, even when its not.
1. Google and the internet are not only guiding us away from reading traditional print in books and encyclopedias for information, they are changing the way we think as well.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Carr's theory that the internet is shortening our attention span, and I can even see it in my own study habits. I too used to be able to read large amounts of text without my mind wandering away every few pages. However, with my computer sitting a few feet away while I read a textbook, temptations to surf the internet and leave the work for later drive me crazy sometimes. The expansiveness and convenience of the internet can provide us with information we never even dreamed of. While I read, I wonder when textbooks will become a thing of the past and all future readings will be online. Being able to skim over time wasting reading seems to be much easier when on the internet.
I also agree that it is absurd to say that everyone would be better off if our brains were supplemented with artificial intelligence in some way. With Google conquering the search for AI, our brains are indeed being outrun when it comes to processing information faster. However, this means a future similar to the one we read about in FEED, and as I can recall, no one viewed that as a positive change.
I disagree with Carr when he uses the example of Socrates viewing the written language as a detriment to memorization, knowledge, and wisdom. I believe he is using this as a simile to the way the internet will be a detriment to knowledge and wisdom as we know it today. I think that the advancement of computing power and the internet is a great way to learn new things, as long as you know how to retain them.
As I combed the article for another piece of information that I didn't agree with, I was surprised that I couldn't find one. Carr has otherwise stated my thoughts as well as I could have. It was scary to see that someone who writes for a living could feel the same way I did.
Thesis: The spread of information onto the internet in the form of blogs, search engines, and other mediums has changed the way we read, which the authors fear may be a change for the worse in that online reading tends to be more formulaic, efficient, and limited ( our brains working as a processor), rather than reading a novel for example which is a deep exploration into words and prose.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Carr on most of what he says. It is a very interesting thing to think about and something that I had not fully considered previously. I agree that (even while reading his piece) I skim articles on the web and blog posts. Deep complex themes and well-written prose, somewhat suffers as a result. Internet blogging and searching is all about efficiency.. the quickest way to illustrate a point. This somewhat rewards unfounded conjecture in blog posts that have high "shock value" rather than a well-researched even-handed news article or opinionated piece. I also agree with his comparisons to being like clockwork, and now we are like computers, instead of expansive vessels of infinite possibility. I think that he does seem to worry about this stuff a little much, but it is definitely an area worth looking into. I think Im actually worried about it. Carr has convinced me somewhat that Google and this hyper-efficienct method of reading writing, researching and communicating is changing the way we think. It may not be making us dumber per se, but it is causing us to think differently. This article makes me want to go into the woods with my John Steinbeck books and read them cover to cover.
Thesis: The more we rely on the internet, the more it’s intelligence will replace our own knowledge and abilities of thought.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the internet is leading to a new type of reading, of quickly sifting through different sources of information. For people who use the internet very often, this becomes the way of reading that becomes most comfortable.
I also agree with his point that the world is imitating this new style of internet reading. The scrolling at the bottoms of screens or article abstracts have become commonplace lately. It’s only logical that business people would seek to create their mediums to imitate those that people are most adjusted to using.
I disagree with the author’s lamenting of his inability to read. He can go back to reading whenever he stops spending the day doing Google searches and sits down with a few books. As he noted, the brain can reprogram the way it functions at any time.
I also disagree with the notion that Google is the most efficient way of doing things. This contradicts the later statement that companies like Google profit off of distraction, which leads to more clicking and ad money. Information can definitely be found quickly, but I think the problem is the internet user is not satisfied with what they find and go on to find their perfect solution or are distracted and go search for other things they didn’t intend to look up. A culture that wastes many hours simply websurfing can hardly be called efficient.
1. The internet and technologies sprouting out of it such as Google have become have made literature so acessible that this may have weaken our ability to do some form of deep reading, enhanced by earlier technologies.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with the author's notion that the internet has made the general public impatient. I am also guilty of it on occasion as well. I can not help but skim through the material to get through to the point of the article.
Just thinking about how many searches occur through out the day and amount of results that come back to you is mind boggling. To think that Google may process information faster than the human brain is just unremarkably fascinating.
The idea that the human brain should act like a high speed processor seems something along the lines of science fiction. Such things would bring in a bunch of moral even ethical problems if persued.
There are certainly more distractions when talking about literature online compared to literature in a book. For example the countless advertisements and the pop-up adds screaming the words, "HELLO!," as they try to get your attention. But regardless what you make of it the information provided is the same. You can read textbooks online and print them out if so desired. Another way is to copy and paste the text from online to Microsoft word.
To think that we are reading more than we have than the 1970s and 80s is a little off. I wish he could provide more sources about that. I feel that the majority of people read what they want to know. Take for example studying for exams we skim the book avoiding filler material in order to get the juicy bits that may be on the test. It is often said our generation reads the news paper less often then our parents. We get it mostly from television, radio and online sources.
1. The systemic categorization and mass dissemination of information, done by both Google and the entity of the internet in general, may be inhibiting our ability for independent and deep thoughts and reading.
ReplyDelete2. With regards to Google I admire the compilation of information and their efforts to make it available and useful to all. In an industrialized nation where access to information was available before the advent of the internet and where we receive a far better education, we sometimes fail to realize the positive impact this source of information can have in LDCs and in rural areas where large libraries or experts in their fields might not be available. I also think that Carr is partially just worrying. But I'm a believer in many-faceted explanation. a little skepticism is probably a good thing.
However, on his side. I agree and have experienced the urge to skim, to get information and understanding quickly rather than waiting, though I am proud to say I can still read a book for hours, and I believe that Taylor's scientific efficiency system can have lots of unintended consequences, especially with regards to our minds.
Thesis:
ReplyDeleteConstant access to flashy ads, pop-ups, texts, daily blogs and short news clips have changed our thought process so that many people can no longer focus on longer texts, but depend upon gaining information in the forms that the internet provides.
Agree:
-“Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” I can see this transformation even in myself. I am 19 years old, and I have undergone great changes in my attention span and ability to comprehend long pieces of text. I was better at reading long books when I was a child, because I hadn’t been exposed to the internet!
-The author mentions that the adult brain is malleable, and can be influenced to function differently at any time. I would have to agree. My brain is changing all the time, and I can notice the changes. I have certainly become less able to focus, especially on reading since I have started using the internet daily. My desire to memorize things has left me, because I know that I can look anything up that I need to know.
Disagree:
-“Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice.” For some reason, I highly doubt that people are reading more today than in the 1970s and 1980s. It seems that back then people would have read a lot more books and newspapers, and even the Bible. The reading that people do today on the internet is basically just to answer emails or skim research articles. I don’t know anyone that will read a book on the computer, or really even a work of fiction. Over the weekend, I went to a book store with some friends. At first, they all went to look at the CDs, then travel guides, and finally we left. Out of five students, only two made a purchase at the book store. My friend bought a CD, and I bought a children’s book that I loved as a kid. None of us intended to go back to the dorms and sit down to a good book. It is a shame. We may be reading more, but it is not more meaningful.
-“In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can ‘access’ and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.”
I must disagree with this statement. The author seems to be summarizing the mission of Google, and may not necessarily agree with what he’s written at all. And so, I disagree with the statement, but not necessarily the author. While I agree that information is an important resource and access to it needs improvement, I’m not sure Google is handing this problem appropriately. In order for access to information to be better, underprivileged people need to be given access. Making computers and websites faster for people in developed countries doesn’t really help anything. It makes privileged people even lazier.
The thesis of Billout's article is that the way we obtain information effects the way understand that information. I agree with the notice of abstracts for articles, implying that the reader need only understand the overlying major points of the piece. I also agree with the idea that the "fuzziness of contemplation" is a good thing. What helps a reader fully understand what they are reading, is the forcing of relation of information to self. If one only needs to skim a piece, they never get bored and their mind never wanders back to their own life, and then back to the piece of writing, and so forth. So, I disagree with the statement made by Sergey Brin about how having an artificial brain "smarter" than our own attached to us would be better. I've noticed this very flaw with google. I often am lead to sites that are completely inappropriate for my needs through the search engine. If google was directly attached to my brain, would I be able to decline its suggestions? Since I finished reading this article in its entirety, I also disagree that it is so difficult to read in this manner. I do struggle with reading off a screen, and so suffer the hypocritical issue of being an environmental studies major who prints reading assignments out.
ReplyDelete1. Our minds have been fundamentally altered by our constant use of the internet, making both “concentration and contemplation” far more difficult.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with the idea that the way we browse the internet may be having a large effect on our reading. When I am online I find myself reading only the headings and first few paragraphs of a news story, and skipping from page to page. I often find that I will read an article as quickly as possible, simply because there are often bad articles online. Rather than spend my time looking at every one we must skim until we find a valid source. However once my brain has been set in this skimming mode it is always difficult to focus once I finally find a useful site.
I also agree that the Internet plays the largest role a communications system ever has and because of this has enormous influence on our thoughts. Internet has been able to absorb almost every medium and has recreated it to fit the World Wide Web. The Internet is not a place for a single medium or topic, when using the Internet we are constantly bombarded with more than just the information in a particular article or email. We have gotten so used to the Internet that it is changing and replacing the original mediums. For example the recent addition of “article abstracts” and “shortcuts” to The New York Times.
I disagree with the statement made by Taylor, “In the past the man has been first, in the future the system must be first.” The system seeks maximum speed, efficiency and output. Taylor’s goal was to reshape both industry and society to be as efficient as possible. I believe if this “system” were to take over society we would see a complete loss of creativity and individuality.
I was unable to find a place where I disagreed with the author. The most shocking information in the article was the goals and quotes from Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the creators of google. “Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off” says Page. I was absolutely horrified to hear this statement, I believe if this ever were to happen it would be the end of society the way we know it.
1. Reliance on the Internet’s immediate and vast expertise has allowed our minds to become biologically lazy, leading to a desire or need for artificial intelligence.
ReplyDelete2. Agree/Disagree:
Every day I find myself affected by Carr’s main observation about google remapping our minds to function dependently on its vast sources of information, instead of on personal knowledge. This mind molding allows me an increasingly shorter attention span, especially when reading from a screen. At the same time my success depends on my dependency on the Internet, so I’m forced to be a pancake person whether I agree or not.
I found it very interesting that the idea of spreading ourselves thin is the product of both social and intellectual aspects in Carr’s article as well as in the Brave New World article. It reminded me of an article that I read by Wendell Berry where he describes our society’s educational and professional structure as revolving around specialization of skills. These ideas are contrasting in that one deals with little knowledge about many things, while the other is a large concentration on one topic or skill. However, the coexistence of these ideals of media are what make our technologically modern lives possible.
I disagree with Carr’s nonchalant viewpoint on artificial intelligence, even though he doesn’t necessarily agree with it, I feel he doesn’t weigh the consequences fairly by comparing it to the publishing of printed literature. I think the two developments are incomparable, and A.I. is on a whole other dimension of connectivity and control over the human mind.
Another case where he references an old development is when he described humans adaptation to “obey the clock”, not to say that these comparisons aren’t an interesting correlation. However, indigenous cultures depended on the clock of the sun, and days have always been generally the same length of time. The actual clock is just the evolved sundial, so I don’t think our dependency on it has changed our brain functions in any way, if anything it’s the number of things that need to be done at certain times during a day that shape the way our brain works.
1. The constant use of instant internet access may be altering not only our patience for reading but also the way in which we think so that more traditional methods of reading that were once enjoyable become difficult.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with that fact that attention spans are becoming shorter. With the much more frequent use of the internet today, people have access to so much more information, so much faster. It is not longer necessary to sit in a library to do a project when you can use the internet and get it done in half the time. People become used to being able to have information right at their fingertips, so when they are faced with a whole book or lengthy article, they are not used to the time needed to glean the necessary information. I feel I am slightly guilty of this as well. I can remember when I was younger being able to read a book for hours on end, whereas now I find myself having to look up from the pages every-so-often to regain my concentration. Maybe it’s just because I’m reading more textbooks than I used to, but I do notice that my reading stamina is not what it used to be, (not quite to the degree that they are describing in the article, but related.)
I also agree with the statement that “[t]he Net’s influence doesn’t end at the edges of a computer screen…” I have often noticed the text crawls and pop-up adds on television that the article has mentioned. And I have to say that I find them to be one of the most annoying things ever to grace the television screen. Also, in Ad Nauseam, they mention how even music videos on TV are being shortened because three minutes was just entirely too long for people to sit and watch. Now even magazine and newspaper articles are being shortened. My grandparents read the newspaper together on Sunday mornings to relax and unwind. They have been doing it since I can’t remember when. But its so sad to think, that their together, Sunday morning relaxation , sip coffee and show each other interesting articles is being cut short because the rest of society doesn’t have the attention span to actually read an entire article.
I personally think that Google trying to create an artificial type of intelligence is weird, unnecessary, and wrong among other things. Especially after reading FEED, I just hope it doesn’t happen. I personally would not refer to what they are trying to do as admirable. I get that they are trying to solve one of the world’s problems, but I don’t think that a lack of artificial intelligence is actually once of the world’s problems that really needs to be solved. Try finding a cure for AIDS, there’s a world problem that needs to be solved. And why do we need artificial intelligence, why can’t we just have real, genuine intelligence with independent thinkers versus people who can barely read, and need to look up words on their better (depending on who you ask)-than-a-brain brain.
I also disagree with the idea that because writing and typewriter’s turned out to be okay ideas that Google’s idea will end up being alright too. I think there is a fine line, and we are fast approaching it. I think the whole artificial intelligence idea would be talking it one too many steps over the line. Why would somebody want to replace what make humans so distinct anyway? Aren’t humans known for being one of or the smartest creature on the planet? Why would we want to make something smarter than us? We would no longer be at the so-called top of the food chain.
Google has created an impatient world where nothing else seems to be fast enough and we have lost the capacity for patience and perseverance.
ReplyDelete2.) The first comment that I disagree with is where he comments that before the Net he was a scuba diver and now he's skimming the surface on a jet ski. If we can think back when the internet was invented we were all scuba divers taking our time exploring the vast diversity of the internet which was something to be valued and now has been lost. Jet skis are loud and annoying.
The second comment that I disagree with is that the internet is used for everything is our life: Our TV, information, news, phone, etc... I don't agree with this. While I do feel that the internet is one of the most abused inventions given to society there are plenty of other tools that affect our lifestyle in a potentially negative and demeaning way. I personally think that the cell phone is the worst thing that could've been invented because it isolates people. I don't use my phone through the internet though because I think that the idea of a separate cell phone is conventional enough.
The first comment I agree with is the one Bruce Friedman makes in regards to the fact that he has lost his ability to read longer more in depth articles. I fully agree with this comment. With the speed and compacted summaries everywhere online our minds have slowly undeveloped the ability to patiently fully understand and tolerate the lengthier more informational resources.
Maryanne Wolf also makes a very interesting comment that I agree with that says "when we read online we become decoders of information. I fully agree with this. Sure with the evolution of text messaging and online chatting we are reading a lot but not real in depth literature. It is a constant stream of short and for the most part simple concise comments that bear no true meaning or need any sort of thought to process. Are minds are drones.
In his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, Nicholas Carr questions how new intellectual technologies influences the human mode of thinking regarding information and concept of self.
ReplyDeleteI agree that google is an incredible networking instrument which allows for effective research and broadening of knowledge base; college students, writers, politicians, parents... literally everyone can benefit from instant access. However, I also have confidence that the more obtainable knowledge there is, the more we become “pancake people.” We are overwhelmed by so much information that we our intellect is spread wide and thin, rendering us unable to participate in deep thinking.
I strongly disagree with the spokesman for Google who argue for a intellectual database that is more powerful than the human mind. In no way should we rely on computers to decide what information is “best suited” to our interests. This squishes individuality and agency, which are core factors in defining the fully human experience. While I understand the argument that the internet makes reading long and involved pieces difficult, I do not believe this is an inevitable side effect. As mentioned in the article, the adult brain is extremely plastic and can teach itself to separate the efficient processing style of online activity with deep contemplation and time consuming inquiry.