Is Google Making Us Stupid?
24 pages • 48 minutes read
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Essay Analysis
Key Figures
Symbols & Motifs
Literary Devices
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Discussion Questions
Summary and Study Guide
Summary: “is google making us stupid”.
The essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” was written by Nicholas Carr . It was originally published in The Atlantic ’s July/August 2008 issue. The essay stirred much debate, and in 2010, Carr published an extended version of the essay in book form, entitled The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains.
The essay begins and ends with an allusion to Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 film, 2001: A Space Odyssey. In the initial allusion, Carr summarizes the moment toward the end of the film in which “the supercomputer HAL pleads with the implacable astronaut Dave Bowman in a famous and weirdly poignant scene [...] Bowman, having nearly been sent to a deep-space death by the malfunctioning machine, is calmly, coldly disconnecting the memory circuits that control its artificial ‘brain.’ ‘Dave, my mind is going,’ HAL says, forlornly. ‘I can feel it. I can feel it.’” (1). Carr uses this allusion to assert that he, like HAL, has had a growing feeling that “someone, or something, has been tinkering with [his] brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory” (2). He feels that his brain has changed the way it processes information and thinks. He finds it increasingly more difficult to read deeply and with subtlety, as he loses his concentration and gets distracted and restless while reading. He attributes this change to the increase in his use of the Internet.
Get access to this full Study Guide and much more!
- 6,850+ In-Depth Study Guides
- 5,100+ Quick-Read Plot Summaries
- Downloadable PDFs
Carr states that he’s not alone in this as the Internet quickly becomes a “universal medium” (4). While he concedes that the Internet has provided the gift of “immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information,” he also cites the media theorist Marshal McLuhan’s more complicated observation: “[M]edia are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought” (4). Carr asserts that “what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation” (4). He then offers that many of his literarily-inclined friends are also observing a similar phenomenon in their own lives.
Carr points out that these anecdotes do not offer empirical proof of anything, and scientific experiments on “the long-term neurological and psychological” effects of the Internet have not yet been completed (7). However, he cites a recent study published by the University College of London that “suggests that we may well be in the midst of a sea change in the way we read and think” (7). The college’s five-year study observed “computer logs documenting the behavior of visitors to two popular research sites, one operated by the British Library and one by a U.K. educational consortium, that provide access to journal articles, e-books, and other sources of written information: “They found that people using the sites exhibited ‘a form of skimming activity,’ hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they’d already visited” (7). The authors of the study ultimately concluded that readers are not reading Internet materials the way that they would read materials in more traditional media—and that the Internet is creating a new paradigm of reading, “as users ‘power browse’ horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins” (7).
The SuperSummary difference
- 8x more resources than SparkNotes and CliffsNotes combined
- Study Guides you won ' t find anywhere else
- 100+ new titles every month
Carr observes that the proliferation of text on both the Internet and via text messaging has likely increased the amount that people read: “But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self,” he says (8). He then cites Maryanne Wolf , the developmental psychologist at Tufts University who wrote the book Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. He writes, “Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts ‘efficiency’ and ‘immediacy’ above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press , made long and complex works of prose commonplace” (8).
Carr then paraphrases some of Wolf’s ideas. He highlights her assertion that reading is not an instinctual human trait: “We have to teach our minds how to translate the symbolic characters we see into the language we understand. And the media or other technologies we use in learning and practicing the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains” (9). He therefore concludes that the neural circuits created by human use of the Internet will inevitably differ from those created in previous eras when books and other printed media were the norm. He also offers an anecdote that supports this point: Friedrich Nietzsche switched from pen and paper to a typewriter for composing his writing in 1882. Nietzsche’s friend soon noticed that the man’s writing took on a different quality as a result—becoming “tighter” and “telegraphic” (11).
Carr reminds his reader of the plasticity of the human brain, asserting that even the adult human brain “routinely [breaks] old connections and [forms] new ones” (13). Carr then defines “intellectual technologies” as “tools that extend our mental rather than our physical capacities” (14). He says that “we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of those technologies” (14). He uses the invention of the clock to prove this point, citing the cultural critic Lewis Mumford to assert that the ubiquity of the clock “disassociated time from human events and helped create the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences” (14). Carr asserts that this phenomena helped bring “the scientific mind and the scientific man” into being—but that it also took something away: “In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock” (15).
Carr asserts that this change extends beyond mere human action and into human biology and cognition. He cites the 1936 writings of Alan Turing, which predicted that the tremendous computing power of the digital computers would lead to their usurpation of preexisting forms of technology. Carr sees this happening as the Internet becomes “our map and clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV” (17). Carr observes that “when the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image” (18). He cites The New York Times ’ decision to “devote the second and third pages of every edition to article abstracts” to provide print readers with a similar experience to Internet readers as an example of this phenomenon (17). He then asserts that no other form of media has had as powerful an influence over human thought than the Internet, and that we have not spent enough time poring over “how, exactly, [the Internet] is reprogramming us” (20). He concludes that “[t]he Net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure” (20).
Carr then informs us that, around the same time Nietzsche switched to a typewriter, a man named Frederick Winslow Taylor invented a regimented program that separated every element of steel plant machinists’ jobs into “a sequence of small discrete steps” (21). Taylor then tested different methods of completing each step to develop “a set of precise instructions—an ‘algorithm,’ we might say today—for how each worker should work” (21). This caused a sizeable increase in productivity—although many machinists felt that the system transformed them into mere robots. However, Taylor’s system was quickly adopted by manufacturers domestically and internationally: “Taylor’s system is still very much with us; it remains the ethic of industrial manufacturing. And now, thanks to the growing power that computer engineers and software coders wield over our intellectual lives, Taylor’s ethic is beginning to govern the realm of the mind as well,” Carr asserts (23).
Carr uses Google’s mandate to “systematize everything,” as well as the company CEOs’ stated desire to perfect its search engine to eventually perfect artificial intelligence as proof of this (24). Carr writes, “[Google’s] easy assumption that we’d all ‘be better off’ if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling. It suggests a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized” (28). Carr also points out that this regimentation of the human mind “is the [Internet’s] reigning business model as well. The faster we surf across the Web—the more links we click and pages we view—the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements” (29). In this atmosphere , it hurts the bottom line of such advertisers to promote the slow, considered reading and thinking pace of previous eras.
Carr then admits that he may be overly anxious in his assertions. He concedes that every introduction of a major new technology was attended to by naysayers. He states that it’s perfectly possible that the utopian prognostications and potential of the Internet could happen. However, he cites Wolf’s argument that “deep reading […] is indistinguishable from deep thinking” to shore up his own credibility (32): “If we lose those quiet spaces, or fill them up with ‘content,’ we will sacrifice something important not only in our selves but in our culture,” Carr posits (33). For Carr, this process is, in the words of the playwright Richard Foreman, “the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self—evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the ‘instantly available’” (33).
Carr then circles back to the 2001: A Space Odyssey scene with which he opened the essay. He notes that the computer HAL’s pleas were the most human aspect of the scene, contrasted against “the emotionlessness that characterizes the human figures in the film, who go about their business with an almost robotic efficiency. Their thoughts and actions feel scripted, as if they’re following the steps of an algorithm” (34). He fears that human intelligence will become oversimplified and impoverished into artificial intelligence if our society continues to rely too uncritically “on computers to mediate our understanding of the world” (34).
Don't Miss Out!
Access Study Guide Now
Ready to dive in?
Get unlimited access to SuperSummary for only $ 0.70 /week
Related Titles
By Nicholas Carr
The Shallows
Nicholas Carr
Featured Collections
Essays & speeches.
View Collection
- Entertainment
Summary Response Essay on article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”
What is your view on technology and how it’s used by yourself or society today? Nicholas Carr is an American writer who has written and shared his views on modern-day technology. Carr wrote and published an article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” which narrates not only his own but many other publishers, bloggers, influencers, and authors’ points of view on the effect technology has on their and society’s minds. In this summary response, I will be giving a general description of Carr’s point in the article, the progressiveness of technology, and what I believe to be true when it comes to the internet changing our minds. There is no doubt that technology is changing our world, let’s dig deeper into the effects of this change. Nichols (Carr 2008) gives his argument about how he believes Google is making us stupid. He starts off with a scene toward the end of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. With the sense of the characters feeling like their minds are slowly disintegrating and they are finally starting to notice (pg 424-425). He connects this to the search engine Google and the usage of the internet. He goes into detail about his reasons on why he believes this and some are that the internet has become a worldwide use to receive your information. Nicholas (Carr 2008) gives personal information about how he struggles to read or comprehend books as fast as he did before. In addition to how people no longer read but skim to try and find what’s important without consuming too much of their time actually reading. He uses different sources such as bloggers whether they are in medicine or just giving their opinion about how the web changed their life and the lives of others (pp 425-428). Carr goes into great detail about his theory of Google negatively changing the lives of not just himself but the world. Furthermore, due to the fact that Nicholas Carr wrote this over a decade ago changes the whole scenario of how Google is affecting the human body and brain. Since then numerous different types of phones and all sorts of technology have been introduced into the world that we live in today, which is giving people even more opportunities to access technological devices. Technology is so advanced that there are endless possibilities of what you can do with it. Which takes up so much more time than anything else. We live in a world that is completely changing day by day, becoming more advanced, the first cell phone came out in 1973 and now there are walking talking robots and drones. There are even self-driving cars being tested which is incredible because yes it seems like that was ages ago, but it hasn’t even been 50 years since. We use technology on a daily basis now, it has become a regular part of everyday life. Before there were books and libraries and now literally everything’s online. So much has changed including how people or our society functions. From personal experience, I spend at least 12 hours a day using technology. Not necessarily just my phone to point out but as well as my school computer and the television. I rarely see newspapers or magazines anymore because everything is easier to access online than actually in hand. Not just Google but Apple, Yahoo, Social Media, etc. are finding new ways to keep people interested and connected to their devices. In light of the fact that yes, Covid-19 has also played a prominent role in the lack of sunshine or just time off and away from the screen, we have to take notice of how society has been attached to their technology for decades now. Carr (Nicholos Carr 2008). also talks about how he struggles with reading as fast as he used to, now from my point of view, I personally enjoy reading the actual book rather than the online copy (pp 426). Maybe that is just because I enjoy reading and others don’t which see how the brain is easily distracted. Especially when we are doing school or reading online from home. I believe that there are many factors that we must include in our minds when we are taking into account if Google is making us stupid. Because it is no longer just Google. No matter how much we try to put it off, technology is changing us humans and if not used wisely then our society can be in grave danger. There is already so much evidence pointing towards people being addicted to their electronics. I believe that it is best to start to become aware of our time used on a screen and maybe change to different hobbies that could positively benefit your mind and body. There is only so much time in this life, let us not waste time staring at a screen, but maybe at the faces that we love. I guess the only question left is, do you believe Google is making you stupid?
Related Samples
- They Took the Children Away by Archie Roche Analysis Essay Example
- Deep Fakes Technology Research Paper Example
- Essay Sample about Technology in Healthcare
- Essay Sample about Quadrilaterals
- Biology Essay Example about Lipids
- 97 Bonnie and Clyde - Comparison Between Eminem and Tori Amos (Essay Sample)
- Analysis of Kenny by Still Woozy Essay Sample
- The Importance of Monuments Essay Example
- Do You Use Technology or The Technology Uses You? (Black Mirror Episode Analysis)
- Reflective Essay: The Film That Has Influenced Me The Most
Didn't find the perfect sample?
You can order a custom paper by our expert writers
Home — Essay Samples — Business — Google — Critical Response on “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” by Nicholas Carr
Critical Response on "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr
- Categories: Google World Wide Web
About this sample
Words: 876 |
Published: Jan 28, 2021
Words: 876 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read
Works Cited
- Carr, N. (2008). Is Google making us stupid? The Atlantic, 301(1), 56-63.
- Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media: A critical introduction. Sage.
- Johnson, S. (2010). Where good ideas come from: The natural history of innovation. Riverhead Books.
- Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of internet use: Access, involvement, and interaction. MIT Press.
- Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
- Pew Research Center. (2022). Internet/broadband fact sheet. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/
- Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart: How to thrive online. MIT Press.
- Rosen, L. D. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn. Macmillan.
- Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. McGraw-Hill.
- Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
Cite this Essay
Let us write you an essay from scratch
- 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
- Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours
Get high-quality help
Verified writer
- Expert in: Business Information Science and Technology
+ 120 experts online
By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email
No need to pay just yet!
Related Essays
5 pages / 2391 words
1 pages / 612 words
1 pages / 489 words
7 pages / 3234 words
Remember! This is just a sample.
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.
121 writers online
Still can’t find what you need?
Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled
Related Essays on Google
Google is a highly influential and innovative technology company that has significantly impacted the way businesses operate in the digital age. One of the key factors contributing to Google's success is its team-based [...]
Google has been a dominant force in the global technology industry, with a significant presence in various countries, including Russia. However, Google's dominance in the Russian market has been challenged by an antitrust [...]
Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review.Hill, T., & Westbrook, R. (1997). SWOT analysis: It's time for a product recall. Long Range Planning.Google Investor Relations. [...]
Google is one of the most prominent and innovative companies in the world, known for its groundbreaking products, services, and work culture. With a focus on attracting and retaining top talent, Google has developed a [...]
Are humans being replaced with new technology? Nicolas Carr says reading is not the same anymore, after a few pages the brain and mind start wandering off. In this essay Carr talks about how Google’s search engine makes it easy [...]
Corporate culture usually relates to share company or organization goal, same expectation, attitudes, and practices that characterize of a corporation and outline its nature. It is often rooted with an organization’s structure, [...]
Related Topics
By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.
Where do you want us to send this sample?
By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.
Be careful. This essay is not unique
This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before
Download this Sample
Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts
Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.
Please check your inbox.
We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!
Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!
We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .
- Instructions Followed To The Letter
- Deadlines Met At Every Stage
- Unique And Plagiarism Free
Is Google Making Us Stupid? Summary
Summary & analysis of is google making us stupid by nicholas carr.
Is Google Making Us Stupid? was written by Nicholas Carr and published in The Atlantic in 2008. The article discusses the author’s personal experience and observations regarding how his reading and thinking patterns have changed due to his increased use of the internet, particularly search engines like Google. The article investigates the impact of internet use on cognition, concentrating on changes in reading habits and information processing. It raises concerns about the internet’s possible influence on deep reading and critical thinking skills.
Is Google Making Us Stupid? | Summary
In the article, the author reflects on how his ability to concentrate and engage deeply with written material has diminished over time. He attributes this change to the constant exposure to online information, which is presented in a fragmented and easily skim-able format. He mentions that his mind has become accustomed to the quick consumption of information rather than engaging in deep, immersive reading. The article also includes accounts from other people who have seen comparable adjustments in their reading habits and cognitive processes as a result of the internet’s effect. The author references research undertaken by University College London professors that implies internet use is affecting the way individuals read and think. The survey discovered that internet readers skim, going from one source to another and seldom reading more than a few pages of an article or book.
The author raises concerns about the potential impact of internet usage on deep reading, interpretation of the text, and the formation of rich mental connections . He talks about how the human brain is malleable and how different intellectual devices, such as the internet, may influence our thinking processes. The article even draws parallels to historical examples, such as the advent of the mechanical clock, which influenced the conception of time and the way people thought.
The author begins by referencing a scene from Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” where the supercomputer HAL pleads with astronaut Dave Bowman to stop disconnecting its memory circuits, expressing a sense of loss and deterioration. The author then draws a parallel to his own experience , feeling that his mind is being changed by someone or something. He describes a shift in his thinking and difficulty with concentration, particularly when reading. He attributes this change to the extensive time spent online, where he searches, surfs, and gathers information from the Internet.
The author acknowledges the Internet’s benefits, such as quick access to large amounts of information, but also contends that it has a cost. He argues that the Internet is shaping the way he thinks and diminishing his capacity for concentration and contemplation. He describes a shift from deep reading to a more superficial style of reading that mirrors the rapid flow of information online. Many friends and acquaintances report similar experiences, struggling to stay focused on long pieces of writing.
Furthermore, as mentioned before, the author refers to a study on online research habits, which suggests a change in reading and thinking patterns. People tend to skim through various sources, rarely returning to previously visited ones, reading only a page or two before moving on. The study concludes that users are not engaging in traditional reading but rather a form of “power browsing” that seeks quick wins . The author contends that the Internet promotes an expectation of immediate access to information, leading to a decline in deep reading and interpretation.
The author cites Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist , who argues that reading is not an innate skill but something we learn and practice. Different technologies used for reading, such as alphabets and ideograms, shape our brain’s neural circuits differently. The author suggests that the circuits formed by Internet use will differ from those formed by reading books. They express concern that the Net’s emphasis on efficiency and immediacy may weaken our ability to deeply interpret and connect with the text. The author presents Friedrich Nietzsche’s adoption of a typewriter as an example of how a technological tool influenced his writing style. He argues that intellectual technologies shape our thinking and cognition. The clock, for instance, detached time from human events and created a different sense of reality. Similarly, the Internet is subsuming other intellectual technologies and transforming them into its image, scattering attention and diffusing concentration. Traditional media adapt to the Internet’s influence to meet the audience’s changing expectations.
Therefore, the author suggests that the Internet’s impact on cognition is profound. The author highlights concerns about the decline of deep reading and interpretation, as well as the potential loss of cognitive abilities that arise from the shift toward a more fragmented and shallow style of engagement with information.
Is Google Making Us Stupid? | Analysis
The author begins by sharing his personal experience of feeling a change in his thinking and concentration, which he attributes to his extensive online activities. This personal perspective serves as a starting point for the discussion on the Internet’s impact on cognition . However, he also acknowledges the benefits of the Internet, such as easy access to vast amounts of information. Nonetheless, arguing that these benefits do not come for free. He emphasizes how the Internet influences how we think and read, potentially reducing our capacity for focus and contemplation.
The author cites a study on online research habits that indicates a shift in reading habits characterized by rapid reading and quick browsing. He contends that the Internet’s emphasis on rapid data availability favors this practice, resulting in a loss of deep reading and comprehension . The author discusses the idea that intellectual technologies, such as the Internet, shape our thinking and cognition. He refers to the use of a typewriter by Friedrich Nietzsche as an example of how a technical item altered his writing style. This shows that the Internet has an impact on cognitive processes other than reading habits.
The author expresses concern about the decline of deep reading and interpretation caused by the Internet’s influence. He emphasizes the importance of deep reading as a taught ability and raises concerns about the possible loss of cognitive capacities caused by a trend toward fragmented and shallow information interaction . The author notes that traditional media are adapting to the Internet’s influence to meet changing audience expectations. This highlights the broader impact of the Internet on various forms of media and communication.
Overall, the excerpt presents a thought-provoking exploration of the Internet’s influence on cognition, discussing the shift in reading patterns, the impact of intellectual technologies, and concerns about the decline of deep reading and interpretation. It raises questions about the potential consequences of our increasingly digital and interconnected world on the way we think and engage with information.
Is Google Making Us Stupid? | Context
To accurately describe the social, historical, and cultural context in which this article was likely written, we can consider some general factors and trends that were prevalent during the period leading up to 2021 when the knowledge cutoff of the model is set.
The article reflects the era of rapid technological advancements, particularly in the realm of the Internet and digital technologies. By 2021, the Internet will have been firmly embedded in many parts of life, altering how people communicate, access information, and interact with media. Concerns raised in the article concerning the Internet’s influence on cognition are contextualized within the larger framework of the digital era and the increase of information overload. The expansion of internet platforms, social media, and digital material has resulted in an overabundance of information and media possibilities, raising concerns about how people consume and manage this huge sea of data.
The author’s discussion of changing reading patterns and the decline of deep reading is reflective of the evolving media landscape . In the digital age, traditional forms of media, such as newspapers and books, faced competition from online platforms, resulting in shifts in reading habits and preferences. This context influenced the author’s observations and concerns about the impact of the Internet on cognition. The article’s exploration of the Internet’s influence on cognition aligns with broader cultural shifts. It reflects a growing recognition and discourse around the potential consequences of digital technologies on individuals’ mental processes, attention spans, and overall well-being . This cultural context likely informed the author’s perspective and motivation to raise awareness about the topic.
The reference to Friedrich Nietzsche adopting a typewriter serves to illustrate how historical figures have been influenced by intellectual technologies. It implies that the issues presented in the essay are not novel, but rather part of a larger historical debate on the link between technology and cognition.
Is Google Making Us Stupid? | Title
The title “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” immediately grabs the reader’s attention by posing a thought-provoking question. It implies that there may be a negative impact on our intellectual abilities caused by our use of Google and the internet. This title suggests that the article will explore the potential consequences of relying heavily on online information and the effects it may have on our cognitive processes.
The subtitle “What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains” adds context and suggests that the article will go into the precise ways in which the Internet is influencing our cognitive functioning. It implies that the essay will investigate the connection between our internet behaviors and the changes that occur in our brains as a result.
Overall, the title and subtitle are important because they draw the reader’s attention, provide a problem that is relevant and concerning, and set the tone for an investigation into the impact of the internet on our thinking and brain functioning.
How to Become a Writer Lorrie Moore Summary
The minority report | summary & analysis, related articles, you are the electric boogaloo summary & analysis, neutral tones | summary and analysis, we should all be feminists | summary & analysis.
FALLING STARS by Rainer Maria Rilke
Leave a reply cancel reply.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
- Talma Gordon Summary, Analysis & Themes December 19, 2023
Adblock Detected
Is Google Making Us Stupid?
What the Internet is doing to our brains
“Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave?” So the supercomputer HAL pleads with the implacable astronaut Dave Bowman in a famous and weirdly poignant scene toward the end of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey . Bowman, having nearly been sent to a deep-space death by the malfunctioning machine, is calmly, coldly disconnecting the memory circuits that control its artificial “ brain. “Dave, my mind is going,” HAL says, forlornly. “I can feel it. I can feel it.”
I can feel it, too. Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.
I think I know what’s going on. For more than a decade now, I’ve been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing and sometimes adding to the great databases of the Internet. The Web has been a godsend to me as a writer. Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after. Even when I’m not working, I’m as likely as not to be foraging in the Web’s info-thickets—reading and writing e-mails, scanning headlines and blog posts, watching videos and listening to podcasts, or just tripping from link to link to link. (Unlike footnotes, to which they’re sometimes likened, hyperlinks don’t merely point to related works; they propel you toward them.)
For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind. The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many, and they’ve been widely described and duly applauded. “The perfect recall of silicon memory,” Wired ’s Clive Thompson has written , “can be an enormous boon to thinking.” But that boon comes at a price. As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.
I’m not the only one. When I mention my troubles with reading to friends and acquaintances—literary types, most of them—many say they’re having similar experiences. The more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing. Some of the bloggers I follow have also begun mentioning the phenomenon. Scott Karp, who writes a blog about online media , recently confessed that he has stopped reading books altogether. “I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader,” he wrote. “What happened?” He speculates on the answer: “What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because the way I read has changed, i.e. I’m just seeking convenience, but because the way I THINK has changed?”
Bruce Friedman, who blogs regularly about the use of computers in medicine , also has described how the Internet has altered his mental habits. “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year. A pathologist who has long been on the faculty of the University of Michigan Medical School, Friedman elaborated on his comment in a telephone conversation with me. His thinking, he said, has taken on a “staccato” quality, reflecting the way he quickly scans short passages of text from many sources online. “I can’t read War and Peace anymore,” he admitted. “I’ve lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.”
Anecdotes alone don’t prove much. And we still await the long-term neurological and psychological experiments that will provide a definitive picture of how Internet use affects cognition. But a recently published study of online research habits, conducted by scholars from University College London, suggests that we may well be in the midst of a sea change in the way we read and think. As part of the five-year research program, the scholars examined computer logs documenting the behavior of visitors to two popular research sites, one operated by the British Library and one by a U.K. educational consortium, that provide access to journal articles, e-books, and other sources of written information. They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity,” hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they’d already visited. They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they would “bounce” out to another site. Sometimes they’d save a long article, but there’s no evidence that they ever went back and actually read it. The authors of the study report:
It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense; indeed there are signs that new forms of “reading” are emerging as users “power browse” horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.
Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self. “We are not only what we read,” says Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University and the author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain . “We are how we read.” Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace. When we read online, she says, we tend to become “mere decoders of information.” Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.
Reading, explains Wolf, is not an instinctive skill for human beings. It’s not etched into our genes the way speech is. We have to teach our minds how to translate the symbolic characters we see into the language we understand. And the media or other technologies we use in learning and practicing the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains. Experiments demonstrate that readers of ideograms, such as the Chinese, develop a mental circuitry for reading that is very different from the circuitry found in those of us whose written language employs an alphabet. The variations extend across many regions of the brain, including those that govern such essential cognitive functions as memory and the interpretation of visual and auditory stimuli. We can expect as well that the circuits woven by our use of the Net will be different from those woven by our reading of books and other printed works.
Sometime in 1882, Friedrich Nietzsche bought a typewriter—a Malling-Hansen Writing Ball, to be precise. His vision was failing, and keeping his eyes focused on a page had become exhausting and painful, often bringing on crushing headaches. He had been forced to curtail his writing, and he feared that he would soon have to give it up. The typewriter rescued him, at least for a time. Once he had mastered touch-typing, he was able to write with his eyes closed, using only the tips of his fingers. Words could once again flow from his mind to the page.
But the machine had a subtler effect on his work. One of Nietzsche’s friends, a composer, noticed a change in the style of his writing. His already terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic. “Perhaps you will through this instrument even take to a new idiom,” the friend wrote in a letter, noting that, in his own work, his “‘thoughts’ in music and language often depend on the quality of pen and paper.”
Recommended Reading
Living with a computer.
How to Trick People Into Saving Money
The Dark Psychology of Social Networks
“You are right,” Nietzsche replied, “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.” Under the sway of the machine, writes the German media scholar Friedrich A. Kittler , Nietzsche’s prose “changed from arguments to aphorisms, from thoughts to puns, from rhetoric to telegram style.”
The human brain is almost infinitely malleable. People used to think that our mental meshwork, the dense connections formed among the 100 billion or so neurons inside our skulls, was largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. But brain researchers have discovered that that’s not the case. James Olds, a professor of neuroscience who directs the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University, says that even the adult mind “is very plastic.” Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. “The brain,” according to Olds, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”
As we use what the sociologist Daniel Bell has called our “intellectual technologies”—the tools that extend our mental rather than our physical capacities—we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of those technologies. The mechanical clock, which came into common use in the 14th century, provides a compelling example. In Technics and Civilization , the historian and cultural critic Lewis Mumford described how the clock “disassociated time from human events and helped create the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences.” The “abstract framework of divided time” became “the point of reference for both action and thought.”
The clock’s methodical ticking helped bring into being the scientific mind and the scientific man. But it also took something away. As the late MIT computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum observed in his 1976 book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation , the conception of the world that emerged from the widespread use of timekeeping instruments “remains an impoverished version of the older one, for it rests on a rejection of those direct experiences that formed the basis for, and indeed constituted, the old reality.” In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock.
The process of adapting to new intellectual technologies is reflected in the changing metaphors we use to explain ourselves to ourselves. 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.” But the changes, neuroscience tells us, go much deeper than metaphor. Thanks to our brain’s plasticity, the adaptation occurs also at a biological level.
The Internet promises to have particularly far-reaching effects on cognition. In a paper published in 1936 , the British mathematician Alan Turing proved that a digital computer, which at the time existed only as a theoretical machine, could be programmed to perform the function of any other information-processing device. And that’s what we’re seeing today. The Internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It’s becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.
When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image. It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.
The Net’s influence doesn’t end at the edges of a computer screen, either. As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations. Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets. When, in March of this year, The New York Times decided to devote the second and third pages of every edition to article abstracts , its design director, Tom Bodkin, explained that the “shortcuts” would give harried readers a quick “taste” of the day’s news, sparing them the “less efficient” method of actually turning the pages and reading the articles. Old media have little choice but to play by the new-media rules.
Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives—or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts—as the Internet does today. Yet, for all that’s been written about the Net, there’s been little consideration of how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us. The Net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure.
About the same time that Nietzsche started using his typewriter, an earnest young man named Frederick Winslow Taylor carried a stopwatch into the Midvale Steel plant in Philadelphia and began a historic series of experiments aimed at improving the efficiency of the plant’s machinists. With the approval of Midvale’s owners, he recruited a group of factory hands, set them to work on various metalworking machines, and recorded and timed their every movement as well as the operations of the machines. By breaking down every job into a sequence of small, discrete steps and then testing different ways of performing each one, Taylor created a set of precise instructions—an “algorithm,” we might say today—for how each worker should work. Midvale’s employees grumbled about the strict new regime, claiming that it turned them into little more than automatons, but the factory’s productivity soared.
More than a hundred years after the invention of the steam engine, the Industrial Revolution had at last found its philosophy and its philosopher. Taylor’s tight industrial choreography—his “system,” as he liked to call it—was embraced by manufacturers throughout the country and, in time, around the world. Seeking maximum speed, maximum efficiency, and maximum output, factory owners used time-and-motion studies to organize their work and configure the jobs of their workers. The goal, as Taylor defined it in his celebrated 1911 treatise, The Principles of Scientific Management , was to identify and adopt, for every job, the “one best method” of work and thereby to effect “the gradual substitution of science for rule of thumb throughout the mechanic arts.” Once his system was applied to all acts of manual labor, Taylor assured his followers, it would bring about a restructuring not only of industry but of society, creating a utopia of perfect efficiency. “In the past the man has been first,” he declared; “in the future the system must be first.”
Taylor’s system is still very much with us; it remains the ethic of industrial manufacturing. And now, thanks to the growing power that computer engineers and software coders wield over our intellectual lives, Taylor’s ethic is beginning to govern the realm of the mind as well. The Internet is a machine designed for the efficient and automated collection, transmission, and manipulation of information, and its legions of programmers are intent on finding the “one best method”—the perfect algorithm—to carry out every mental movement of what we’ve come to describe as “knowledge work.”
Google’s headquarters, in Mountain View, California—the Googleplex—is the Internet’s high church, and the religion practiced inside its walls is Taylorism. Google, says its chief executive, Eric Schmidt, is “a company that’s founded around the science of measurement,” and it is striving to “systematize everything” it does. Drawing on the terabytes of behavioral data it collects through its search engine and other sites, it carries out thousands of experiments a day, according to the Harvard Business Review , and it uses the results to refine the algorithms that increasingly control how people find information and extract meaning from it. What Taylor did for the work of the hand, Google is doing for the work of the mind.
The company has declared that its mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” It seeks to develop “the perfect search engine,” which it defines as something that “understands exactly what you mean and gives you back exactly what you want.” In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can “access” and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.
Where does it end? Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the gifted young men who founded Google while pursuing doctoral degrees in computer science at Stanford, speak frequently of their desire to turn their search engine into an artificial intelligence, a HAL-like machine that might be connected directly to our brains. “The ultimate search engine is something as smart as people—or smarter,” Page said in a speech a few years back. “For us, working on search is a way to work on artificial intelligence.” In a 2004 interview with Newsweek , Brin said, “Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.” Last year, Page told a convention of scientists that Google is “really trying to build artificial intelligence and to do it on a large scale.”
Such an ambition is a natural one, even an admirable one, for a pair of math whizzes with vast quantities of cash at their disposal and a small army of computer scientists in their employ. A fundamentally scientific enterprise, Google is motivated by a desire to use technology, in Eric Schmidt’s words, “to solve problems that have never been solved before,” and artificial intelligence is the hardest problem out there. Why wouldn’t Brin and Page want to be the ones to crack it?
Still, their easy assumption that we’d all “be better off” if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling. It suggests a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized. In Google’s world, the world we enter when we go online, there’s little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.
The idea that our minds should operate as high-speed data-processing machines is not only built into the workings of the Internet, it is the network’s reigning business model as well. The faster we surf across the Web—the more links we click and pages we view—the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements. Most of the proprietors of the commercial Internet have a financial stake in collecting the crumbs of data we leave behind as we flit from link to link—the more crumbs, the better. The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.
Maybe I’m just a worrywart. Just as there’s a tendency to glorify technological progress, there’s a countertendency to expect the worst of every new tool or machine. In Plato’s Phaedrus , Socrates bemoaned the development of writing. He feared that, as people came to rely on the written word as a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry inside their heads, they would, in the words of one of the dialogue’s characters, “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful.” And because they would be able to “receive a quantity of information without proper instruction,” they would “be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant.” They would be “filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom.” Socrates wasn’t wrong—the new technology did often have the effects he feared—but he was shortsighted. He couldn’t foresee the many ways that writing and reading would serve to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge (if not wisdom).
The arrival of Gutenberg’s printing press, in the 15th century, set off another round of teeth gnashing. The Italian humanist Hieronimo Squarciafico worried that the easy availability of books would lead to intellectual laziness, making men “less studious” and weakening their minds. Others argued that cheaply printed books and broadsheets would undermine religious authority, demean the work of scholars and scribes, and spread sedition and debauchery. As New York University professor Clay Shirky notes, “Most of the arguments made against the printing press were correct, even prescient.” But, again, the doomsayers were unable to imagine the myriad blessings that the printed word would deliver.
So, yes, you should be skeptical of my skepticism. Perhaps those who dismiss critics of the Internet as Luddites or nostalgists will be proved correct, and from our hyperactive, data-stoked minds will spring a golden age of intellectual discovery and universal wisdom. Then again, the Net isn’t the alphabet, and although it may replace the printing press, it produces something altogether different. The kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds. In the quiet spaces opened up by the sustained, undistracted reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas. Deep reading , as Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking.
If we lose those quiet spaces, or fill them up with “content,” we will sacrifice something important not only in our selves but in our culture. In a recent essay , the playwright Richard Foreman eloquently described what’s at stake:
I come from a tradition of Western culture, in which the ideal (my ideal) was the complex, dense and “cathedral-like” structure of the highly educated and articulate personality—a man or woman who carried inside themselves a personally constructed and unique version of the entire heritage of the West. [But now] I see within us all (myself included) the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self—evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the “instantly available.”
As we are drained of our “inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance,” Foreman concluded, we risk turning into “‘pancake people’—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.”
I’m haunted by that scene in 2001 . What makes it so poignant, and so weird, is the computer’s emotional response to the disassembly of its mind: its despair as one circuit after another goes dark, its childlike pleading with the astronaut—“I can feel it. I can feel it. I’m afraid”—and its final reversion to what can only be called a state of innocence. HAL’s outpouring of feeling contrasts with the emotionlessness that characterizes the human figures in the film, who go about their business with an almost robotic efficiency. Their thoughts and actions feel scripted, as if they’re following the steps of an algorithm. In the world of 2001 , people have become so machinelike that the most human character turns out to be a machine. That’s the essence of Kubrick’s dark prophecy: as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.
When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic .
Is Google Making Us Stupid? Essay
Introduction, works cited.
The world is growing too fast in terms of technology since the emergence of the internet. The internet remains important in bringing about technological change, thus influencing changes in human behavior.
In the view of many, the internet has greatly contributed to the growth of knowledge and research. However, although the internet has greatly contributed to the growth of knowledge, it has been opposed by a section of people arguing that it has numerous negative implications to innovation and creativity.
In his July Article, Nicholas Carr wrote “Is Google making Us Stupid.” Google is a widely used search engine across the internet. It is fundamental to note that although technology is essential in the context of the society, it comes with fear of deteriorating human development in some way. In this paper, I seek to argue in favor of the statement that Google is not making us stupid.
Developments in technology and growth of knowledge would need necessary tools for their success. Therefore, knowledge requires tools of technology to ensure easy access, growth and distribution of information.
To argue that the minds are being made stupid by a tool that enables access to information with a view to advance the same body of knowledge is unsustainable. We note that research is a continuous exercise that needs scholars and academicians to link various pieces of knowledge with an aim of making it better.
Therefore, technological tools that promote this process are critically important (Leven 112). It is true according to DarkHawke that there shall constantly be fear of the advancements in technology by the masses (Schlesinger 68).
Science has done far-reaching research and predictions on what can go wrong with the advancements in technology. This fear has been in existence among people since their childhood. In many occasions, parents have exhibited their fear of technology by dictating and perhaps prescribing what their kids should watch, listen to, and play with.
Indeed those who argue against the extent to which Goggle has contributed to the growth of knowledge do so in the spirit that it has acted to obliterate the public discourses. They argue that no individual can now think about an answer when he or she can just “Google” the outcome (Schlesinger 68).
The mere fact that people can access information at a touch of a button does not amount to idleness of the mind, but rather, the idea of using the search engine is self-fulfilling.
Fundamentally, no stupid mind can navigate around the internet trying to seek knowledge and expand neither his nor her scope of understanding. It is perhaps important that I table the essence of for which the search engine was established to serve.
The need for faster access to information has been there since the historical moments. It may be necessary to state that Google is not solely responsible for making the minds stupid, but if in case stupidity exists, individuals are virtually responsible for it.
Research calls for moral and professional responsibility. Indeed no individual can now take another person’s piece of work and present for marking. For many decades, people have delivered their research materials at various level, whose ownership has been suspect.
These presentations went unnoticed since no tool was in place to ensure originality and authenticity of these materials (Leven 11).
Today, Google take up a position of faster access and navigation through any form of data and information previously completed by various researchers. It is worth not6ing that plagiarism is an academic and professional offence whose image does not does not occupy space in the realms of research.
Nothing can be wrong if someone wants to learn about a given phenomenon or subject. Let us imagine the trouble that one would go through searching into the entire book looking for a specific piece of information. Firstly, the essence of time serves as the best rubric for continuous use of search engines like Google and yahoo.
The essence of the search tools in facilitation the access to information serves far-reaching importance in cushioning academicians against the implications of time3 wastage. Traditionally, the process of looking for information, processing and presenting was too long.
This led to delayed spread of knowledge to the intended destinations and people. Because the spread of information has contributed to the emergence of numerous innovations through creative imaginations, it follows that technological tools should be made available, accessible and efficient in achieving this noble course.
Google represents the common struggle that people have engaged in though it achieves this objective though in a more convenient manner (Sherman 110). It still resembles that act of flipping through voluminous pages of old books to look for a specific index, words, or phrase.
This engine should be viewed as a facilitator of finding information within short span of time without much struggle. Additionally, traditional mode of looking for information has been limited in scope and approach. It is critical to examine the extent to which this search engine has demanded of us to make and unite various pieces of information to emerge with a unique piece.
Today, people can now access various sources, books, articles, and journals in order to come up with a succinct piece that reflects the demands of dynamic world. Initially, we have been restricted in the manner and scope of knowledge in which our home libraries have been the order of the day in establishing what we consume.
Growth and development of academicians cannot depend upon physical information whose nature of study is tiring and exhaustive.
Let us take the introduction of scientific calculators, which automatically gives answers to mathematical problems. Before this technology came in, complex mathematical problems could take numerous days or hours before arriving at an answer by manually performing the calculations. Now, everyone began using these tools in solving their problems in mathematics and other scenarios.
However, even though this is the order of the day, does this mean that we are eventually being made stupid, or is it just a sheer adaptation to the changing world and times? Should humanity revert to the olden days and mode of doing things in order to avoid being stupid?
Can it be fundamentally correct to propose that we have been made stupid by cars by letting go on walking? Should people stop listening and using digital music, videos and films and revert to analog forms of entertainment without appreciating the new ones?
Perhaps these questions should be essential in demonstrating the significant role played by Google in illuminating the minds of people, rather than making them stupid (Jones 112). Anyone who has stopped thinking in anew style and manner of doing things merits falling in the classification of stupid beings.
Those who have perhaps sought to revert to the traditional ways of searching for information by shutting the computers have convinced themselves that print media is virtually different from electronic media. To depart from using high-tech tools that gives you what you need in a real-time mode serves to demonstrate some sense of “stupidity of the mind.”
In conclusion, the creation of Google and other search engines has greatly facilitated access to crucial information in a timely manner as compared to the traditional modes.
Although it may be true that individuals have been made inactive in thinking because of the readily available information, this availability has enabled a successful growth of knowledge. For example, Google has served critical roles in making available relevant information in real time (Sherman 110).
Therefore, it is not exclusively true that Google serves as the means to achieving the necessary ends, but not an end in itself.
The idea that Google widens the scope of our minds allows us to imagine of the troubles suffered by our ancestors during the historical moments (Books LLC, General Books LLC 114). To create and develop a sense of imagination about a subject that makes you stupid reveals just how the problem resides in you.
To blame computer engineers and developers of programs for one’s growing stupidity demonstrates that perhaps one has decided to stop engaging in critical thinking and reverted to blame-games. Finally, the fundamental roles played by the search engines such as Google remain important in ensuring ease of acquisition of knowledge.
Books LLC, General Books LLC. 2008 Works: Is Google Making Us stupid? I Love the World, Barrack Obama Hope poster, Texas Medal of Honor Memorial, Playing Gods . New York: General Books, 2010. Print.
Jones, Kristopher. Search Engine Optimization: Your vision blue print for effective internet Marketing . New York: John Willey and Sons, 2010.
Leven, Mark. An Introduction to Search engines and web navigation. New York: John Willey and Sons, 2010. Print. 111.
Schlesinger, Andrea. The Death of “Why?” The Decline of Questioning and the future of Demogracy . Berret Koehler Publishers, 2009. Print.
Sherman, Chris. Google Power: Unleash the full potential of Google . New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. Print.
- Chicago (A-D)
- Chicago (N-B)
IvyPanda. (2021, July 29). Is Google Making Us Stupid? https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-google-making-us-stupid/
"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" IvyPanda , 29 July 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/is-google-making-us-stupid/.
IvyPanda . (2021) 'Is Google Making Us Stupid'. 29 July.
IvyPanda . 2021. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" July 29, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-google-making-us-stupid/.
1. IvyPanda . "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" July 29, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-google-making-us-stupid/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" July 29, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-google-making-us-stupid/.
- Intelligence and Leadership in “Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid” by Ray Hyman
- Discussion: Google Making Us Stupid
- Are Internet and Google Making Us Stupid?
- Rhetoric in “Is Google Making Us Stupid” by Carr
- "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr
- Is Google Making Us Stupid?
- Difficulties in Being Smart Person
- "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Article by Carr: Rhetorical Analysis
- Flight into Canada by Ishmael Reed
- ‘Vardielo’ and ‘Adventures of Pinnochio’
- Intelligence in Two Psychological Journals Written by Thorndike and Hagopian
- Learning and Cognition Project
- Applying Problem Solving
- Attention Biases in Anxiety
- Lifespan Development and Personality Paper
- EssayBasics.com
- Pay For Essay
- Write My Essay
- Homework Writing Help
- Essay Editing Service
- Thesis Writing Help
- Write My College Essay
- Do My Essay
- Term Paper Writing Service
- Coursework Writing Service
- Write My Research Paper
- Assignment Writing Help
- Essay Writing Help
- Call Now! (USA) Login Order now
- EssayBasics.com Call Now! (USA) Order now
- Writing Guides
Article Review Of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, by Nicholas Carr
Table of Contents
Summary of Is Google Making Us Stupid?
Essays are of different types, and they also include article reviews . An article review is an article or a type of essay that is typically written for an audience with the knowledge of the subject area. A significant portion of students believes that an article review must always be negative and therefore, they focus on only the negative aspect of an article while neglecting all the positive aspects. However, it should be an objective article that focuses on all the sections as well as points or arguments of an article . An essay must always have an introduction, a body section, and finally, a conclusion, and a writer needs to pay attention to all these sections.
In this article, guidelines will be provided, and these will be based on the review of “Is Google making us stupid”. Here, the writer will provide the audience with the “is Google making us stupid” summary encompassing the different tricks as well as the flow of the essay. While writing a review, the writer must always desist from giving their opinion because this makes their paperless credible and more subjective. Additionally, others drift from the article provided and write an essay that encompasses material from other articles. Below are aspects or a simple summary of the article “Is Google making us stupid?”
Article Review Of Is Google Making Us Stupid
- Our minds are changing as a result of the time we spend online.
- The easiness with which people are currently tackling previously strenuous activities like research, etc. is indeed baffling. Everything has been made easy which reduces the amount of energy we spend thinking and discerning conflicting ideas.
- Media does not just supply information to the users, it also shapes the thoughts that flow in people’s minds. Previous habits such as reading are slowly being affected, but only a few people have noticed the change.
- Changes in the way people think and absorb information have been detected. We are currently adopting the old styles of efficiency and immediacy which weakens our capacity to read deeply. In the most subtle of ways, new technologies tend to change our original habits as well as the way we think.
- The more we use the new technological innovations and inventions the more we change and start taking on similar qualities as the technologies.
- People have become hurried readers as well as absorbers of information. We have become like the Internet which seems to have a little bit of everything. The same way that the Internet injects a medium’s content with different content is the same way people are absorbing information.
- Traditional media has also been affected. Television programs currently have pop-up ads and newspapers have also been tailored to meet the needs of this generation.
- The idea of having the machine or the system comes first is slowly taking shape and effect. Inventions are initially thought to increase efficiency and help a man to generate or produce with maximum effort, and this output is slowly taking the place of a man. Subsequently, man’s brain has also been conditioned and is, therefore, unable to learn or function as it used to in the past.
- Google’s ambition of making it easier for people to access information is indeed interfering with the works of the brain. The brain is a component that should always be engaged, however, with Google’s increased or improved future search engine, the brain’s use will surely diminish.
- The belief that thinking is a result of a mechanical process is also startling. This necessitates the idea of improving our brains or having them replaced with better and highly efficient ones. Initially, people learned through ambiguity and also by having as many questions as possible. However, currently, Google and its compatriots in the field of technology want us to believe that ambiguity is but a bug that needs to be fixed.
- Our brains represent the epitome of intelligence. The way people process information is indeed many times slower than the computer. However, the most intriguing question is, should we seek to have our processing speed increased or improved? At what expense or at what cost will this be? Google is after every simple piece of data we provide them, and on most occasions, we often have to cancel some adverts without considering the simple fact that we are the people who made it easier for such pop-up ads to appear on our computers.
- Newer inventions create illusions of a better future and a better place. However, people are always fascinated with new things and hence the excitement and rush towards them.
- The world needs to be wary of new inventions and technologies. While the old ways of doing things might seem archaic and less efficient than the new ones, they are not only stealing from us the fundamentals of life but also things that help our brains to grow. People are slowly sacrificing a little of themselves by adopting new ways of living. The essence of humans should always be protected, but the new ways of life are slowly helping to rob us of that which makes us human with extraordinary brains.
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy
Is Google Making Us Stupid: Summary and Response
- Word count: 1131
- Category: Brain Google Is Google Making Us Stupid
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteed
Over history technology has changed mankind’s overall culture. From clocks to computers the use of electronics and tools is occurring every day in almost all situations. In Carr’s article “Is Google Making us Stupid?” he introduces the idea how the internet is changing our lives by making us mentally process information differently from the past, based off previous changes in history. Carr explains how we think less deeply and rely on quick facts, versus using critical thinking and research. Also he explains how our brain is malleable, and may be changed by the internet’s impression. Lastly Carr talks about what the internet may become in the future, and how it could make us more like computers. I believe Carr’s ideas on the way the internet is shaping lives are valid because the proof is all around us. (Carr)
Carr believes the internet makes us less deep thinkers due to its easiness. He elaborates on how we only have to ask a question and there isn’t any lengthy research, becoming like a pancake. Since on the internet we gain a lot of spread out information, but not in depth knowledge on the specific topic, becoming spread out and thin intellectually, like a pancake. Carr says, we no longer have to analyze information and understand it ourselves, but instead rely on simple answers. The simplicity and easiness of finding an answer is changing deep thought, to shallow thinking. (Carr)
I agree with Carr that we are becoming shallow thinking people because the internet makes research quick and simple. I relate this to the phrase “Just Google it”, this is commonly used when we don’t want to research or think in depth about a topic and we rely on the internet and other people’s experiences to educate ourselves. What this ultimately does is change us from critical thinkers into lazy-like typing zombies that believe almost anything online since we no longer rely on ourselves to investigate. I see this not only in myself, but in many of my peers. Carr could be correct, society may become more and more simple minded and leave extended thinking in the past with paper text.
In “Is Google Making us stupid”, Carr explains how the brain is malleable and how the internet might be shaping it by literally rewiring the brains network. Carr gives a brief example of how neurons can be made and broke depending on what things shape the way things are done. By being used to instant searching and internet preferences, the brain reprograms itself in being used that certain way. He thinks by using the internet so much, we will become more and more objective and quick thinkers, and ultimately emotionless computers. He also gives examples of how the clock and typewriter changed our way of thinking in the past. Adapting this way will rewire thought processes and continue to dictate how we act. Carr’s theory may be more obvious as we continue to be reliant on technology. (Carr)
Again I agree with Carr’s theory on changing the brain’s thought processes because the proof is in the history of mankind. When Carr stated the fact of how the clock had made a huge impact on how we go about our day, I realized its significance. Modern culture is completely shaped by time, when we eat, sleep, work, and much more. I have seen this first hand when I worked with Native Americans. They do not rely on time frame, and kind of live, work, and do as they feel and the setting of day. Knowing the clock has made such a huge impact on our lives, I plainly see how it changed our brains thought pattern. We have wired ourselves mentally to wake up on time, and what we will do. Again I have to agree since scientific research has shown that the brain rewires its self, constantly making new, and breaking old neuron channels. Seeing this specific pattern gives proof to how internet is taking the place of the clock in a modern way. Google continues to grow and change the way things are perceived on a daily basis because the internet is used in everything anymore.
Ultimately Carr believes we are headed to a future where we all think like a “HAL” computer. He says: “As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence” (Carr). Piecing his entire article together leads Carr to believe we are progressing into a computer-like culture. A culture where our emotions become artificial and task orientated. Becoming “Pancake people” and knowing a lot pertaining to everything yet little about each topic. He fears we will think collectively and quick thinking for ourselves, again becoming more like a computer system. The more our society becomes reliant on technology, the more people become like the systems they use.
Lastly I do not absolutely agree with Carr’s complete concept of where we are going because I think human kind will always have human nature, and primal instinct. I think of it this way, technology is fueled through electricity, electricity is not a natural element we can just accumulate. Knowing this, if someday in the future all power fails along with the internet and technology we rely on, we may begin to regress backwards and forget about the habitual use of the internet. When everything powers down, man will not. Human nature is to fight, survive, live, and love. However I do believe as we use the internet the more we act like it, but I don’t think it’s going to drastically change natural habits. Life style is changed through the internet, but we are still human.
The more the internet is used, the more it dictates our culture. Look around electronics are everywhere and constantly being upgraded. As time goes on the more everyone relies on networks like the internet. It may change our process of life and thought, and may even adapt us into the new era of mankind. Carr has brought much of this information into perspective and maybe if everyone would look around it is possible to see how society has progressed so much since the birth of the internet. People can now learn instantly, train, communicate, and work with everyone on the planet. This alone has advanced, changed mostly everything done in our current culture. Being human will always be the essence of actions throughout life, but the internet has changed the way we live. From Google, GPS and Facebook; everyone plans, works, and seizes the day being surrounded by these technologies.
Works Cited
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. Atlantic Magazine, August 2008. Web. 29 January 2013.
Related Topics
We can write a custom essay
According to Your Specific Requirements
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. If you need this or any other sample, we can send it to you via email.
Copying is only available for logged-in users
If you need this sample for free, we can send it to you via email
By clicking "SEND", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.
We have received your request for getting a sample. Please choose the access option you need:
With a 24-hour delay (you will have to wait for 24 hours) due to heavy workload and high demand - for free
Choose an optimal rate and be sure to get the unlimited number of samples immediately without having to wait in the waiting list
3 Hours Waiting For Unregistered user
Using our plagiarism checker for free you will receive the requested result within 3 hours directly to your email
Jump the queue with a membership plan, get unlimited samples and plagiarism results – immediately!
We have received your request for getting a sample
Only the users having paid subscription get the unlimited number of samples immediately.
How about getting this access immediately?
Or if you need this sample for free, we can send it to you via email.
Your membership has been canceled.
Your Answer Is Very Helpful For Us Thank You A Lot!
Emma Taylor
Hi there! Would you like to get such a paper? How about getting a customized one?
Get access to our huge, continuously updated knowledge base
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" was written by Nicholas Carr. It was originally published in The Atlantic 's July/August 2008 issue. The essay stirred much debate, and in 2010, Carr published an extended version of the essay in book form, entitled The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains.
What is more, when it concerns an argumentative essay on the effects of technology, Nicolas Carr's article "Is Google Making us Stupid" is a must-read source. Here, I give a short summary of Carr's argument and show how you can cite it in your essay depending on the position you take.
Nicholas Carr When I first read the title of Nicholas Carr's article in The Atlantic magazine, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?," I had no intention of being convinced. In his article, Carr argues that modern Internet usage habits cause a loss of attention span, changing an individual's thought patterns and diminishing intelligence and culture.
"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" is a 2008 article written by technologist Nicholas Carr for The Atlantic, and later expanded on in a published edition by W. W. Norton. The book investigates the cognitive effects of technological advancements that relegate certain cognitive activities—namely, knowledge-searching—to external computational devices.
Nichols (Carr 2008) gives his argument about how he believes Google is making us stupid. He starts off with a scene toward the end of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. With the sense of the characters feeling like their minds are slowly disintegrating and they are finally starting to notice (pg 424-425).
The Internet is a machine designed for the efficient and automated collection, transmission, and manipulation of information, and its legions of programmers are intent on finding the "one best method"— the perfect algorithm—to carry out every mental movement of what we've come to describe as "knowledge work.".
In Nicholas Carr's essay, "Is Google Making Us Stupid", he mentions the dangers that will come forth in future generations based on the risks of the open webbed internet. Carr gets through the dangers of Google by abusing the use of ethos, pathos and logos.
Carr indicates that all these skills have disappeared with the increased use of the Internet. As such, Google and the Web, in general, are not making us stupid, in fact, it is exercising and refreshing the parts of the brain that make people better in terms of reading, writing, and even thinking. However, it must be recognized that this does ...
Table of Contents. Nicholas Carr's powerful essay called "Is Google Making Us Stupid" is an interesting piece of writing that persuaded readers to take a long and hard look on the Internet's impact on the human brain. An overview of the essay revealed the application of a careful appeal to the reader's emotions, the establishment of ...
As a result, the intensity of their work is reduced, and the "obsession" of people with Internet surfing leads to impulsiveness and a loss of ability to leisurely and in-depth intellectual activity. Moreover, people who are always online are complaining of fatigue, irritability, and difficulty in perceiving. Young people who are accustomed ...
In the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr he argues that the internet is changing the way we think and work for the worst. I have to disagree. Although the internet is changing us, it's for the better. First, the internet has become a great equalizer in terms of education.
In "Is Google Making us stupid", Carr explains how the brain is malleable and how the internet might be shaping it by literally rewiring the brains network. Carr gives a brief example of how neurons can be made and broke depending on what things shape the way things are done.
Argumentative Essay On "Is Google Making Us Stupid": EssayZoo Sample Pages: 3 pages/≈825 words Sources: 3 Sources Style: APA Subject: Literature & Language Type: Essay Language: English (U.S.) Document: MS Word Date: 2020-01-28 Total cost: $ 10.8 Download Topic: English 101. Critical Review: "Is Google Making Us Stupid" Essay Instructions:
Summary. Is Google Making Us Stupid? was written by Nicholas Carr and published in The Atlantic in 2008. The article discusses the author's personal experience and observations regarding how his reading and thinking patterns have changed due to his increased use of the internet, particularly search engines like Google.
July/August 2008 Issue "Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave?" So the supercomputer HAL pleads with the implacable astronaut Dave Bowman in a famous and weirdly poignant...
Essay Sample: The Impact Of Google On Our Brain: Is It Making Us Stupid ... Is Google Making Us Stupid, Summary by Nicholas Carr Pages: 4 (972 words) "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" ... Students looking for free, top-notch essay and term paper samples on various topics. Additional materials, such as the best quotations, synonyms and word ...
In his July Article, Nicholas Carr wrote "Is Google making Us Stupid." Google is a widely used search engine across the internet. It is fundamental to note that although technology is essential in the context of the society, it comes with fear of deteriorating human development in some way.
A person or animal that acts in a monotonous, routine manner, without active intelligence. automantons. A terse saying embodying a general truth, or astute observation. aphorisms. The act or process of knowing; perception. cognition. (of meaning) not clear or plain; ambiguous, vague, or uncertain. obscure.
12.95$ Order now Article Review Of "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", by Nicholas Carr March 27, 2017 Basic Essay Writing Tips Last modified on May 11th, 2022 Summary of Is Google Making Us Stupid? Article Review Of Is Google Making Us Stupid Summary of Is Google Making Us Stupid? Essays are of different types, and they also include article reviews.
In Carr's article "Is Google Making us Stupid?" he introduces the idea how the internet is changing our lives by making us mentally process information differently from the past, based off previous changes in history. Carr explains how we think less deeply and rely on quick facts, versus using critical thinking and research.