Week Two: A Response to "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

The article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr brings up interesting points in the way that technology has evolved over time, and the impacts that it has made on the human brain. As technology has progressed, it has changed the way in which humans think. Not necessarily diminishing our ability to think, but altering the way in which we receive, process and give information. While responding to this article, I would like to note that in these contexts of reading and writing, one must also understand the audience and subjects, those who are truly affected and discussed by Carr. As writing came into practice among cultures, the wealthy classes were the only ones who were educated to be able to read and write. Now, on a similar (more global) scale, first and second world countries would be the most widely used population to refer to as they have the education and access to literature and the internet. These cultures more primarily use written word as a means of communication, whereas a third world country may rely more on verbal information and communication. In addition, due to cultural differences between a first and third world countries, their outlook and the affect by sources and technology such as Google will be vastly different. 

When writing was first being put into practice, Socrates was concerned with people forgetting more information. Instead of relying on memory, would writing become a substitution for knowledge people use to have in their heads? As writing came into practice, passing information and stories down through generations could be permanently stored - somewhere other than the human brain. Would writing then cause us to "cease to exercise the brain and become forgetful?" As history goes, that is not necessarily true. Granted, it might be more difficult for us [as humans] to remember things upon hearing them once. But who knows for sure? When your grandpa tells you a story about his childhood, do you remember it in entirety the first time? Probably not. This may have been true thousands of years ago, before writing was widely practiced, and verbal communication was the primary use of communication through communities, and from generation to generation. 

As technology has progressed over time, it has affected and influenced both written and verbal communication. People use to dive into books, reading them cover to cover, pondering the context, plot and purpose of it. Now people "control f" to find what they're looking for in an article or reading. Does this truly make people less smart? Or does it mean the way they process information has changed? I have to say that I have never been a huge reader, and I'm picky about the books that I read (hence, I go to RPI.) But that's okay because not all of us have to love reading. For me, online short articles are convenient. I find what I need and what I want in a timely manner. But for those who enjoy the depth and time of a book, why let technology change your life or reading style? That's a personal choice. We all (meaning Americans) have the freedom to choose what we read. So why does Carr allow this change to influence his life so heavily? Especially when he enjoys reading good literature? He states that "what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation." But why let it? He has the capacity to not go on the Net, but instead read books, the newspaper etc. It seems that Carr is allowing the internet to play an uncomfortably large influential role in his life. 

As the internet has made finding information easily, providing it at our fingertips, people still have control. One observation I have made is with younger generations. I find it rarer to find children with a book in hand - whether at a restaurant, at home or in the car - but rather with an iPad or some other piece of technology. It seems that with younger generations reading as a pass-time has dissipated because they are being brought into a world of technology. But this too can be changed and monitored through parental control. Technology does play a large and influential role in people’s lives; because they allow it to. 

In addition, Carr also brings up the point of machines, and how evolved they have become. The analogy to a clock was a most interesting one. Although the clock "disassociated time from human events and helped create the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences" it did not make us stupid, but rather altered the way we oriented ourselves around time. Technology is a truly powerful source. What if the internet or technology becomes smarter than those who program it? Will we lose control as a population? Should we allow it to become so integrated into our self as a human that we become high speed data processing machines? Are we machines? No. Should we be machines? No. WHY would someone want to be a machine?? What about ones individuality and personality, not that of a machine? These are several complex questions that came to mind as I read through this article. Although they do not all have answers, and are more complex than we may perceive, technology is on the brink of these possibilities. 

Overall, this article made a variety of points and intrigued me significantly. Although I do have several questions and opinions that have spurred from reading this article, I want to be clear on where I stand in this response. Technology is a compilation of thousands of years of evolution that has had a significant impact on society and the world today; whether or not we like it. Google has made reading and finding information convenient because it truly is at ones fingertips. It's a growing and changing world where people have the choice of how much "content" they want their brain to be filled with or distracted by. However, it is always ones choice how involved they allow technology to be in their life. If you don't like it's involvement in your life - change it.