Post by joeweston on Aug 9, 2011 20:29:20 GMT -5
Nicholas Carr's Atlantic article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" addresses the most prominent dilema the information age brings with it, how the access to the internet affects our thinking. Carr's stance is somewhat murky for the majority of the article, with a dull undertone of fears or distaste for the Net. He provides a good deal of history both of the internet and information technology in general. For example, Carr draws on the common parallel between the Net and the printing press, but also makes a somewhat unconventional likening to the development of writing and Socrates' damning response to it. The beginning of the article holds many half-critical testimonies from other intellectuals such as media analyst Scott Karp or medical blogger Bruce Friedman, both noting how the internet has reformatted our way of thinking and pushing us away from long, complex thought. As Carr puts it, "The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle." For the first third of the article, Carr dances around an open condemnation of the Web that's harsher than saying it has made us prone to jumping between topics.
Carr is heavily focused on the way our brains are being reshaped, and gives less attention to the ramifications of that reshaping. The article looks into how other technologies changed not only our thoughts but our thoughts about thoughts. Carr provides a helpful parallel in stating, "When the mechanical clock arrived, people began thinking of their brains as operating “like clockwork.” Today, in the age of software, we have come to think of them as operating “like computers.” The relation of clocks and computers is made more interesting by a later remark Carr makes about the role of the internet with regards to other information technologies. The article notes how as the internet absorbs other types of information like entertainment, news, and directions, they all flow into a seamless cyber grid work that constitutes the internet's give and take of knowledge between browsers, websites, advertisers, and their intermediaries like Google.
Towards the end of his article Carr, makes clear that his opinions aren't fully honed on the subject. While he does certainly appear anxious about information technology, he also encourages we "should be skeptical of [his] skepticism." This is not to say I oppose in any way Carr's more nuanced stance about the issue. The way the article approaches the Net is fundamentally the right way to handle this. The internet has not yet made it's complete impact on our society, and it's fully appropriate to not yet have a honed opinion. I personally believe that with the advent of our new cyber world our assessment of intelligence should move from "how much data you know" to "how well can you interpret new data," as the sum of all human knowledge is getting closer to being instantly accessible. However, as Carr and so many others readily point out, there are some clear drawbacks to the new way of doing business in the knowledge game. Therefore, I believe Nicholas Carr is fundamentally right in the way he approaches the subject of changing human intelligence.
Carr is heavily focused on the way our brains are being reshaped, and gives less attention to the ramifications of that reshaping. The article looks into how other technologies changed not only our thoughts but our thoughts about thoughts. Carr provides a helpful parallel in stating, "When the mechanical clock arrived, people began thinking of their brains as operating “like clockwork.” Today, in the age of software, we have come to think of them as operating “like computers.” The relation of clocks and computers is made more interesting by a later remark Carr makes about the role of the internet with regards to other information technologies. The article notes how as the internet absorbs other types of information like entertainment, news, and directions, they all flow into a seamless cyber grid work that constitutes the internet's give and take of knowledge between browsers, websites, advertisers, and their intermediaries like Google.
Towards the end of his article Carr, makes clear that his opinions aren't fully honed on the subject. While he does certainly appear anxious about information technology, he also encourages we "should be skeptical of [his] skepticism." This is not to say I oppose in any way Carr's more nuanced stance about the issue. The way the article approaches the Net is fundamentally the right way to handle this. The internet has not yet made it's complete impact on our society, and it's fully appropriate to not yet have a honed opinion. I personally believe that with the advent of our new cyber world our assessment of intelligence should move from "how much data you know" to "how well can you interpret new data," as the sum of all human knowledge is getting closer to being instantly accessible. However, as Carr and so many others readily point out, there are some clear drawbacks to the new way of doing business in the knowledge game. Therefore, I believe Nicholas Carr is fundamentally right in the way he approaches the subject of changing human intelligence.