Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Nicholas Carr theorizes that the Internet not only changes the amount of information available, it also changes the way we think. It is an interesting article in The Atlantic's web site. It is not a genealogy-related article but does pose interesting questions for everyone who uses the Internet.

You can read the article at http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google.

Now, tell me, did you read the article from beginning to end?

Comments

[Paul]

Dick,

I agree with the author. The internet has had a profound effect on the manner in which people read, myself included. In fact, in a recent conversation with a co-worker, I mentioned that I had not picked up a good book in a long time. After I heard myself say that, it prompted me to do just that. After I read that book, what did I do? I got on the internet to look for another one. ;-)

-Paul

[Bruce Hamilton]

Dick, I have a terrible confession to make. The real reason I subscribe to EOGN is not for the genealogy, but for your excellent IT and social commentary articles and links!

--Bruce

[Marilyn]

No. I got the gist of it from the first few paragraphs. I do not do a lot of reading per se online. I read books voraciously. When I find a web document that seems to scroll on forever and ever with no pictures, breaks, chapters, etc I tend to lose interest. I like turning pages to find what is on the next one. I can read a book in a variety of positions and scenarios, but there is only one position and place I can read my pc.

[Lois]

Well, I read the whole article. I get very tired of reading from a computer screen and I know that many others do as well. It is not just us old foggies over 40, either. My 20 year old who has played computer games since age 3, had a keyboarding speed of 120 words per minute at 15, cannot live without a cell phone and continuous access to Facebook and is rarely exposed to direct sun light, picked up a paperback novel tonight for an hour or so before going out to see his friends in the flesh.

I stopped reading fiction when I became a mother. It had nothing to do with the www. It had everything to do with not having the luxury of uninterrupted time. It seems to me that my father, who was also a lawyer, only read fiction when he was on vacation far away from the office. I read book reviews rather than books. Lately I find I am reading movie reviews rather than taking the time to go to a theater or even to rent the DVD.

Legal research is done with keyword searches in relevant databases now. I prefer to browse. The two techniques produce quite different results. However, I am too busy and too expensive to do much legal research now. I pay other lawyers to do that. Research has become my hobby instead of my vocation. Hmm.

Being too busy and living life in the fast lane comes from a workaholic culture rather than the internet methinks.

[Peter Calver]

If I want to read, I mean really read and digest something, I print it out.

Perhaps if I used a notebook, a tablet PC, or an ebook I wouldn't feel the need to do that. But I find it hard to digest something on a vertical screen. Maybe that's because it reminds me of when I was at school and expected to remember what it said on the blackboard (which, for the benefit of youngsters reading this, is what we used before whiteboards were invented)?

I don't believe the way I think has changed as a result of the Internet, because I've always had a tendency to skim and flit from one thing to another - not something unrelated, as with channel-surfing (which I can't abide) but tangentially-related, as with clicking on a link. Maybe Google and the WWW were designed for people like me - it certainly makes our lives easier.

[Michael Pollock]

After reading the entire article, I agree with the author, though I largely fault our education system, which seems predisposed to teach just one way of doing something and penalize any "resistance", while denying the validity of any evidence of damage done. That attitude predates the use of the "PC", my experiencing it in college in the '70s where my only contact with computers was knowing that a "supercomputer" widely touted as the "most advanced in the country south of Washington, DC" took up the entire basement floor of a structure where I took a freshman government class that has a "footprint" of about half the size of a football field!

[Liz Kerstens]

Well, I read the whole article. I think the author intentionally made it long to make his point and see if anyone would read the whole thing. I forced myself to read it and it was quite interesting. As editor of a digital-only publication, I was paying attention to what he was saying, even while thinking that it doesn't apply to me. I don't like to read long items on the computer because of eye strain. When I edit, I print out the articles, edit them on paper, and then make the corrections on the computer. Part of that is old-school, the other part is concern for my eyes.

But I still read whole books voraciously. I love to read. It's very relaxing, plus my mind soaks up the stuff in books. In fact, I start to panic when I don't have an engaging book to read before I got to bed.

So not all of us are affected the way he's discussing, but I can see that many people are. Thanks for sharing this link, Dick!

[Mirtyanne]

No I did not read the whole thing. The first paragraph gave me a headache. One thing I have found is if the article is too long I have no desire to read it. Same for posts that go on forever.

If it weren't for the internet and search engines I would not have gotten as far as I have on my genealogy.

I will read a book if I am interested in the subject.

[Linda]

As a clergy person, I teach any number of Bible/Theology classes in which I HAVE to read deeply in order to prepare to teach. I learned long ago (a LONG time before the Net) that I can't do that kind of in depth reading without underlining, highlighting and taking notes - none of which I can do on a computer screen. It's a matter of involving more of my senses that enables my mind to follow and absorb a writer's long and often difficult to follow theological, historical, socialogical, psychological or whatever other "ogical" arguments and evidences that are put forward.

Therefore if I find something on the Net that I believe warrants deeper reading I print it out and follow my established pattern of deep reading.

I teach a class that I encourage to read deeply, distributing copies of articles, chapters from books and/or web pages that put forth ideas for them to read and study and then we follow up with discussion and clarification. They are all college grads and post grads, holding professional positions. They love that style of a class and participate enthusiastically.

So, if I'm preparing to teach something, yes, I read deeply, but not on a computer screen - I need to touch the pages, so to speak. In that way I've read more than one book at a time for about as long as I can remember.

I seldom read ads and I skim newspapers, magazines, mail, catalogues, and yes, the Net. Those things entertain me and give me information about what's going on in the present so I can carry on intellegent conversations with friends. I don't need to read deeply to catch the drift of what I'm "looking at". I do not channel surf - that drives me nuts! But I "read", encyclopedia articles, theology books, the Bible, and whatever else expands my mind into new areas of thought, challenges my presuppositions and enables me to be a thoughtful and knowledgeable teacher of my chosen subject.

Have I read a novel recently? No, not particularly interested in that genre of literature. Did I read the article? Not, I got the gist of it right off.

[Eileen Souza]

Yes, I read the entire article, long-winded and meandering as it was. I do not agree that the Internet is making us stupid, anymore than I believe that TV rots our brains. To me there are two motivators for reading. One is to acquire knowledge, and the other is to entertain.

Intelligence is not how you acquire the knowledge but rather how you use it. I believe the Internet provides us with more knowledge than we would ever obtain using prior research methods. For longer articles on the net, I still print because you can't write margin notes, underline or highlight on your screen.

I read several books a week for my entertainment and relaxation and my reading tastes have not changed, even as my age advances. I'm a reader. I read books, street signs, cereal boxes, directions, and anything else that contains words. I LOVE THE INTERNET!

[John M Shepherd]

This article struck me. I have been a voracious reader from childhood and still enjoy the roll and thunder of words. An elegant turn of phrase stops me in mid paragraph to muse on the beauty of the writers creation. Yet I am continually distracted by mis-spelled words and odd punctuation. Even in this piece, the use of "it's" instead of "its" grates on my virtual ear. Reading a newspaper or watching the "News" on television redirects my thoughts, not to the subject at hand, but to the emphasis placed on the story by the person, or the selection of that person because of the way their mouth moves in order to attract viewers.

[Penny in Texas]

I find the comments here more interesting than Mr. Carr's article. (Yes, I read all of it.)

I certainly don't think the internet is making people stupid. An education system that does not encourage thinking creatively or "outside the box" may be doing so, though. Don't get me started on that soapbox.

Having developed a love affair with books at a very young age, mine is a life-long habit and the internet doesn't seem to have affected it at all, even though I'm a voracious internet user. I still love to read books, both fiction and non. Interesting that Mr. Carr failed to mention how many books are now available to download or read online. Many of them I wouldn't be able to read, otherwise!

In my "old age", I've returned to the small and very rural community of my childhood. The inherent lifestyle of such a location has its merits; however, unless one has unlimited funds for travel, one is a little too insulated from the wider world in many respects. I love the internet! It allows me to converse with newly acquired friends all over the globe and do it in "real time". It feeds my penchant for a diverse set of interests and allows me to find new information quickly. It allows me to travel to places I'll never see in person via its always-expanding pathways. It beats the heck out of TV for both education and entertainment in more ways than I can list.

I think Mr. Carr is a bit of a worry-wort (as he described the possibility). I was fortunate enough to have parents who knew the value of independent thinking and encouraged it. Every person needs a small streak of anarchist and explorer in their soul as those can be healthy things and help them think more deeply than they would otherwise.

Long live technology, I say. Bring on the next round of new things to try out and to use with discretion. That said, I draw the line at turning over my brain to a mere computer. I don't think any computer will ever match the God given ability to imagine the unimaginable, to create the heretofore undreampt of, to feel the deepest emotions, or to value such things as loved ones or freedom above its own existence. For those things, you need a good old fashioned human.

Regards,
Penny

[Betsy]

So if one does not read the article that person is thus part of the problem and proves the point? No I didn't read the whole article because after the first several paragraphs it was going nowhere and I didn't happen to find it particularly engaging or well-written.
However, I do read books, lots of books, and not on any screen either.

[Donna]

Yes, I read the whole article, and yes, I am still reading books. In fact, I am reading more than ever, thanks to the Internet. It has given me access to news that I would not have had otherwise, and it has also given me access to short stories that are not available in magazines or other offline sources. It is true, however, that before I retired from teaching high school social studies that I was very disappointed as more and more students related how they no longer read books or anything else. There is hope, I suppose, in noting the number of people who are commenting on the article.

[Caroline Gurney]

I read the whole article but I don't agree with the author. I still read many books - fiction and non-fiction, for entertainment and for information.

I also read deeply on the Internet. For example, you recently pointed us to a database of victims of the French Revolution. I visited it and started to look up famous victims such as Danton and Robespierre. This led me to realise I'd forgotten much of the history of that period which I studied at university, so I spent the whole evening on the Internet reading about the French Revolution.

What has almost gone from my life is TV. I find TV news reports and documentaries frustrating in their shallowness (dumbing down) and annoying because of the spin of the presentation. I prefer to dig deeper into the particular aspects of the subject which interest me, using the Internet.

[James Castellan]

QUOTE from Linda above:

“As a clergy person, I teach any number of Bible/Theology classes in which I HAVE to read deeply in order to prepare to teach. I learned long ago (a LONG time before the Net) that I can't do that kind of in depth reading without underlining, highlighting and taking notes - none of which I can do on a computer screen.”

I just copied this text and underlined "underlining", highlighted "highlighting" and footnoted "notes" on my computer!

Man is a tool user. A machine is a complex tool. A computer models a universal machine. It can be made to simulate virtually any machine.

We now have petabytes of data, a Google of information, much less knowledge and too little wisdom.

Just as our physical environment now provides many in developed countries the opportunity for overwhelming obesity, the so-called information revolution allows many to cram lives with endless pornography or piffle.

It’s how a human chooses to use tools that reveals wisdom.

[Bobbi]

I don't think Google is making us stupid.

I think it is making us impatient and lazy. Why go to a library when you can bring the information to your desktop? Why wait or spend a lot of time looking for something when you can have it now?

The biggest drawback is that it is spilling over to other areas of our lives where industry and patience are needed.

Yes, I read the article all the way through.

Bobbi

[GMF]

Article was much too long and its message could have been adequately conveyed with fewer words. I still read books but find the Internet saves me much time, both in genealogy and areas where I might have to spend hours.

As an example, a family member took a medication that the Dr said is OK. He apparently failed to spend a moment on the 'Net where he could have quickly learned that the FDA had, during last winter, posted info relevant to the reaction a family member has had.

I'm all for Google, used wisely!!

[pat]

After reading it all with great interest, I immediately forwarded it to a grandson who is starting work on his Masters in Artificial Intelligence at Purdue. I concur with author on much of his content.