In the article, Is Google Making Us Stupid, Nicholas Carr first points out that he felt like his brain was being taken somehow beacuse of the internet--how we can now just skim through articles and think that we know everything there is to know about a certain topic. When I read this article I was really drawn to it because he talked about not only one person that had their own opinion about this, but at least five. Carr explained that people aren't even reading full stories anymore, or can't hold their focus through a whole story. For example, Bruce Friedman stated, "I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print." Not only can Friedman not hold a focus in print, but the web as well. Any more than four paragraphs, Friedman also stated, he skims through.
Carr also mentioned that we are probably reading more than people were in the 1970's or 1980's, although it's not the right 'way' of reading. In today's world our reading is through texting and emails, not storybooks or novels.
I think that we should encourage people to read storybooks and articles because I don't think that people should skim through articles or books but actually get into the writing. I agree with Carr throughout the whole article because I think that although Google is helpful, I don't think that everyone should rely on it completely.
I completely agree that it's good to be able to read novels or long articles, but I just don't see how Google is hampering our ability to concentrate. Google allows us to find any piece of information we may want without having to trek to a library and find just the right book. We may even be able to find the exact book we would've had to use at the library online where we can read it at our own leisure. We can still read long articles online or even entire books online. I don't see how widespread availability of texts could in itself be a bad thing. The problem comes in how people use it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you. I don't think we should rely solely on the internet, and I also agree that the internet is definitely not a bad thing. Although it is useful in many ways, like Tim said, I do think that the problem is how people use it. I think that if people learned to use it when it's more efficient, but then also be willing to try books as well, it would be okay. Yes it may be just as efficient to find information online, but in my opinion, books tend to be more reliable. Think about it. Is someone going to spend a lot of money to publish a book with facts that may not be true? Obviously, we can't believe everything we read, but I tend to believe the things on paper more rather than online.
ReplyDeleteTim, you wily beast. How ya been? Good? That's good.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree with you 100%, pal. Google is nothing but a boon for us. It is our misuse of it that's the problem.
We've made Google into this mechanism of triviality that is only there to dispel our boredom by producing a game or movie clip or a song as soon as we ask, the kind of instant gratification that perpetuates itself. We use it like a plaything whereas its value is as an archive of every single idea ever conceived in one singularity. However, it is man's tendency to abuse his creation and to pervert what is beneficial into something negative.
So without further redundancy, Google is not making us stupid; our stupidity is keeping us stupid.
I see where you all are coming from and I think they are great points. Tim: I think that you're right about how it's not that Google is making us stupid, it's how we use it. I also agree with Ali when she said that facts on paper seem to be easier to believe compared to facts online; it's easier to tamper and change facts online whereas on paper no one can change it because it's already final. Thank you for your comments!
ReplyDeleteI think that we are finding it increasingly hard to concentrate because we have become accustomed to our questions being answered quickly and directly. When we read a passage, we don't want the details: we want the main point. This is why we tend to skim articles.
ReplyDeleteI agree that skimming shouldn't be encouraged. I take reading and writing as a way to communicate detailed information accurately and efficiently. Most of us can read far faster than what we can speak. However, when we begin to read and write as a replacement of simple vocal communications, we begin to develop problems. We expect reading to be as instant and effortless as listening. Few want to spend an hour listening to someone speak, so obviously few would want to read something for an hour just to extract simple information.
ReplyDeleteI don't know. Skimming is definitely a useful skill to have. For example, standardized tests that are timed. I completely agree you should not simply skim a novel or skim an important essay, but if you are reading an article and would like to get to the main point or the part that interests you, I think it's completely fine. It's all a balance and what you're reading of course-- it's silly to feel obligated to intake every single detail about a news story about wandering cows or whatever, but for things where the details count, such as novels and essays, skimming is probably negative.
ReplyDelete