In this article, Nicholas Carr attempts to show the reader what the Internet is doing to our brains. Although I agree that the Internet is in fact changing our though process, I would not say it is making us stupid. The word "stupid" seems a bit harsh and unnecessary. I am assuming that this Nicholas Carr is an adult and he should be using a more sophisticated word. Just after reading the title, Mr. Carr has gotten onto my bad side. Reading deeper into the article, my initial thoughts did not change very much.
The interesting thing about this article is that the attention getter is a quote from a movie with a computer-gone-bad. Obviously this movie is a fictional movie, but this does not stop Carr from using it as a valid source of information. Yes, Nicholas, the idea of computers eventually taking over may be a valid one. No, Nicholas, you cannot base your claim for the amazing Google making us stupid based on a science fiction film.
Aside from my bitter attitude towards the writer, the article did successfully explain the evolution of our brains and how they react with the different technologies of the time. I know that I have troubles concentrating on long pieces of writing. The blame may or may not be on the Internet. As a teenager, I have essentially grown up with the internet, so I have not had much experience in a world without it. I assume the people pointed out in the first section of this article are older people, and have known a world without such advanced technologies. I can see how the Internet may seem to be an evil creature, sucking out all intentions of being smart and the yearning to read long books. But, my inability to concentrate is based more on my utter pickiness towards the things I read. Once I find something good, I can read it like there's no tomorrow. As a fellow Internet-dweller, I have stumbled upon a few folks who are also slightly addicted to their computers and other technological devices. I know for a fact that those folks are not incapable of reading books. Yes, they are reading books that appeal to them. Students may find it difficult to concentrate on reading articles for school, but that is not a sign of stupidity.
Ultimately, technology may change the way we think, but that does not have to be a bad thing. Everybody has adjusted to clocks and the printing press, and we will evolve and adapt to new technologies the world throws at us. Over all the years since the clock was invented, humans have definitely changed, but we are still just as well-functioning as we were before. Thinking differently does not mean the same thing as thinking stupidly. (Yes, I will not stop pointing out the fact that Nicholas used the word "stupid" in a stupid way. I can say stupid because I am a child and am not claiming that the entire group of Google users are ignorant.)
As a Google entusiast, I cannot say that Google is a bad thing. Google is one of my favorite things on the Internet. There are just so many different things that Google has accomplished -- they are not just a search engine. I will refrain from going on about how lovely Google is, due to the length of this blog post already. Unfortunately, I do have to say that the idea of computers being greater than the human brain is a bit silly. Maybe I am feeling skeptical because of the book Feed by M.T. Anderson (I'd recommend it), but actually putting the computer into the brain seems a bit too far. Maybe in the future, the idea would be a grand idea, but right now, in the present, it sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. I have nothing against Google, and as long as they are thinking progressively, they should be fine. I honestly don't see any of that super computer with artificial intelligence happening anywhere except in movies any time soon.
Overall, this article was interesting and fairly thought-provoking. I don't entirely agree with the main message, but we need to have these skeptical thinkers to balance out the free minds who have unrealistic theories and such. Humans may be thinking differently, but we are not stupid.
Wow, Juliet--your post really brought up some good points! I, too, took issue with the fact that Carr implied that not being able to focus on a long article means we're "stupid." I am an avid reader, and will devour an entire series over the course of a month, but if you hand me a scientific paper, it would be very difficult to get through in one sitting. The fact remains: some things are just more engaging to read than others, and in order to want to read, we need to find things that interest us. We cannot just pick up anything and expect to breeze through it--that would be an unrealistic expectation.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your opinion on putting computers into our brains. When I read about it in Carr's article, I immediately thought "wow, what a scary prospect!" We cannot allow computers to think for us, no matter how "intelligent" they may be. I took issue with Carr's use of the word intelligent to describe computers, much like you took issue with his use of stupid. To suggest that computers could ever have a real thought process seems unrealistic to me.
Overall, I think you're right: we are not becoming stupid, we are just thinking in a different way. I don't think this is a bad thing; I mean, we haven't always thought the same way, have we? Our thought processes and ways of thinking need to change in order to adapt to our changing environment and society.
Hey Juliet! Good work keeping up with your summer blogging. You do a good job here of disagreeing with the author and bringing in arguments to support your disagreement. Challenging an author's stance and assumptions is a key element of critical thinking. Keep working hard, and I'll see you next month!
ReplyDeleteHi Juliet! A very intriguing blog past about this essay. I greatly agree with your post. We do need skepticism in the world to balance out and keep those free thinkers from going haywire. That being said, the idea that the use of Google makes you stupid is a harsh label. I firmly believe that Carr isn't exploring his possibilities, just his problems. The way his voice came through, a very stuck-up voice, if I may add, wasn't thinking much for anyone else and their abilities. He was writing as if there were no options and no possible change. Have a nice end to your Summer!
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the author did take a harsh stance on what Google and the internet are doing to us. By saying "stupid", a reader could assume this technology is a negative change got humanity; I do believe that in this case, that is the correct assumption, Juliet. But in reality, the author has a deeper and possibly unintentional revelation made. That technology changes and ultimately compromised our intelligence. Before, as stated in the article, humans worked at the rates of the sun rise and the sun set before. Our bodies were in sync with the spinning of the earth. But when the clock came, our life styles became mechanic, industrialized. This change caused negative but also positive repercussions. A modern world rising in the ashes of a natural one. In this case, the owners of computers might be losing their ability to deeply read a novel. This might be true. Until you throw away your clocks and live with only the sun and the moon can you truly realize what technology has done to us.
ReplyDeleteI agree Juliet! Just because the world is changing, doesn't mean it is a bad thing. My parents would probably agree with Carr. Not because they hate technology, but because it is new and don't know how to deal with it. (My dad still doesn't really know how to use his phone.) I agree with Carr in the sense that we need to be aware of repercussions to our world, but destroying technology won't change that.
ReplyDelete