Journal of the mental environment
Instant gratification takes its toll
Nick Carr asks, "Is Google making us stupid?"
- Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:07 am — Posted by Jon
- | 8 comments
The rise of the internet has given us access to unparalleled amounts of information. So much so that some people have begun to rely on the web as an intellectual crutch rather than the powerful educational tool that it is. The attitude seems to be that if it’s on the internet, it’s not worth taking the time to learn, the information will still be there tomorrow. As if the web can be relied upon as a supplementary brain, a communal mind that can cure ignorance with the click of a button.
This information overload leaves us constantly skimming, giving superficial readings to countless discrete units of information. If deemed worthy, an article might hold our attention for a few paragraphs. But there’s no longer room for a writer to take any liberties. You’d better get to the point quickly, or it’s on to the next thing.
This is a symptom of a greater problem. For years theorists have postulated that the way we think is inextricably linked to the technology of the day. The invention of the clock changed the way that we understood time, and in a very real way the internet is changing the way that we think about information.
The idea that our minds should operate as high-speed data-processing machines is not only built into the workings of the Internet, it is the network’s reigning business model as well. The faster we surf across the Web—the more links we click and pages we view—the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements … The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.
Comments
What interests me more is Scott Karp’s post The Evolution From Linear Thought To Networked Thought (quoted without permission in Nick Carr’s article for the Atlantic).
I don't think he's entirely correct. Yes, the Internet is changing the way we do things, including how we think - or fail to. Consider Wikipedia which someone mentioned. Where I work, you'd be laughed out the door if you cited that as an authoritative source. Yet a generation is growing up thinking this is the Gospel Truth. The idea of going to a library and looking through two or three sources to confirm the first's data just doesn't enter into peoples' minds any more.
Or consider a sign printed by computer in a cafeteria where I work. Only a few lines of large-font text. There were five typos/spelling mistakes. We trust machines to do our thinking for us, even when it's plain they can't do so reliably.
It's also changing the way we interact. People now socialize via computer instead of face-to-face. How is this an improvement?
don't read then.
I don't see how it is any different from scanning through the books in a library.
Or skim reading a thick book for a particular reference.
We have to chance to scan and see if the information is relevant to us and if not move on.
If the information is valuable of course people will stop to read it.
I'm fairly young and I find myself using the internet for more educational purposes. Aside from academic research, I've taught myself a lot about the arts through the internet. Wikipedia has become a handy tool to quickly learn about a particular term or concept now and then. However, I do understand what this article is trying to convey, though a little biased and weak in its inference. Being apart of the generation that has grown and responded the most to the recent info. tech. boom - I have an unhealthy fear of lengthy documents or web pages. We like things that are catchy and flashy, as well as informative. I'd rather watch a brief cinema on an issue rather than reading a ten page document for it.
I think the issue today is more a matter of interest. We are willing to spend more time on what we find intriguing. Yet, the irony is that what appeals to us is systematically defined and encouraged by the media and marketeers. It's another double edged sword.
the clock didn't change the way we understood time, only Einstein did, it merely changed the way we dealt with it. The internet is not changing the way that we think about information as much as the way we deal with it - this includes too much information and disinformation. The closest thing this article resembles is the old days of Readers' Digest which assembled words but had no depth.
To deal with the title, - not so much making us stupid as making us lazy.
The question is not when will computers surpass the processing ability of the human mind; but when will the processing ability of the human mind drop below that of computers.
I would take these words more seriously if there was any substance to them, other than plain theorising.
Post new comment