In the article Is Google Making Us Stupid?, Nicholas Carr, the author, discusses the pros and cons of technology, specifically the Internet, as both a provider of information, and a way for humans to access information. He opens with a quote from the infamous film 2001: A Space Odyssey, where HAL, the supercomputer, pleads with his human companion not to shut him down. “Dave, my mind is going,” says HAL sadly. Similarly, Carr feels that his mind is also experiencing a loss. A prolific and successful author and bibliophile, Carr has nonetheless noticed a marked change in his cognitive abilities, especially in the context of reading. It’s not necessarily that his mind is going, but it is undergoing a transformation. Losing himself in a book or
…show more content…
For more than a decade, a considerable portion of his time has been spent online: surfing aimlessly or purposefully, searching for sources or articles or bits of news, and yes, even adding his own words and ideas to the vast databases of the Web. He, like many others, acknowledges the great boons the Internet has provided us. Research that used to take hours or even days trawling through musty periodicals and stuffed shelves at libraries now takes minutes. A few quick keystrokes and facts, quotes, anecdotes, images, and anything else he might be looking for appear, instantly. All of the collected knowledge of human history is available to anyone with a connection, archived, photographed, discussed, reviewed, and published on, ready and waiting to be found, read, and shared. There is no denying the wonder and benefits provided by the perfect storage, preservation, and retrieval of information made possible by the Internet. However, it is here that Carr makes his primary argument: media, he says, are not just “passive channels” through which information flows. Media provides us with content for consideration, but media, such as the Internet, does not just provide a source for “the stuff of thought.” Media also shapes the process by which we actually …show more content…
He welcomes criticism: “You should be skeptical of my skepticism.” However, I agree with his criticisms, and I recognize their truth with a heavy heart. The Internet is not the printing press, it has not brought great literature to the world, or at least, not alone. Along with the wisdom of the ages has come a hodge-podge of absolutely everything anyone has ever thought of; Dante and Shakespeare digitally float alongside 13-year-old me’s inane ramblings on LiveJournal. Peer-reviewed literature must compete for legitimacy with unverifiable conspiracy nonsense, and every single day I hear “Oh yeah, I saw you posted that, but it was so long… I didn’t read it.” The Internet has destroyed my capacity for long-term memory, because my brain confidently assumes that “I can just look it up later.” Hours spent flitting through Google and Wiki-Wandering, enjoyable as they may be, have done nothing for my ability to sit down and read a quality source from start to finish. I lament my negligible concentration span, and my inability to just sit and read, for the only way I can really dive into a book anymore is if I shut off my phone, computer, and iPad; effectively quarantining myself from the temptation of the Internet. I wholeheartedly agree with Maryann Wolfe – deep reading is indistinguishable from deep
For more than a decade, a considerable portion of his time has been spent online: surfing aimlessly or purposefully, searching for sources or articles or bits of news, and yes, even adding his own words and ideas to the vast databases of the Web. He, like many others, acknowledges the great boons the Internet has provided us. Research that used to take hours or even days trawling through musty periodicals and stuffed shelves at libraries now takes minutes. A few quick keystrokes and facts, quotes, anecdotes, images, and anything else he might be looking for appear, instantly. All of the collected knowledge of human history is available to anyone with a connection, archived, photographed, discussed, reviewed, and published on, ready and waiting to be found, read, and shared. There is no denying the wonder and benefits provided by the perfect storage, preservation, and retrieval of information made possible by the Internet. However, it is here that Carr makes his primary argument: media, he says, are not just “passive channels” through which information flows. Media provides us with content for consideration, but media, such as the Internet, does not just provide a source for “the stuff of thought.” Media also shapes the process by which we actually …show more content…
He welcomes criticism: “You should be skeptical of my skepticism.” However, I agree with his criticisms, and I recognize their truth with a heavy heart. The Internet is not the printing press, it has not brought great literature to the world, or at least, not alone. Along with the wisdom of the ages has come a hodge-podge of absolutely everything anyone has ever thought of; Dante and Shakespeare digitally float alongside 13-year-old me’s inane ramblings on LiveJournal. Peer-reviewed literature must compete for legitimacy with unverifiable conspiracy nonsense, and every single day I hear “Oh yeah, I saw you posted that, but it was so long… I didn’t read it.” The Internet has destroyed my capacity for long-term memory, because my brain confidently assumes that “I can just look it up later.” Hours spent flitting through Google and Wiki-Wandering, enjoyable as they may be, have done nothing for my ability to sit down and read a quality source from start to finish. I lament my negligible concentration span, and my inability to just sit and read, for the only way I can really dive into a book anymore is if I shut off my phone, computer, and iPad; effectively quarantining myself from the temptation of the Internet. I wholeheartedly agree with Maryann Wolfe – deep reading is indistinguishable from deep