Is Google Making Us Stupid Essay

In his article, Is Google Making Us Stupid, Nicholas Carr, a former executive editor of the Harvard Business Review and a component of the steering board for the World Economic Forums cloud computing project, criticizes the overall restore of the meshing, as a whole, on the human process of thought, comparing his past level of conception to a scuba diver in a sea of words whereas his current understanding simply zips on the surface (Carr 68). Carr targets the prominent internet search engine as the black sheep for web substance abusers dwindling in capacity to comprehend and concentrate on high-brow literature. However, due to the fact that the objective of the quite a little is to ultimately be monetarily successful, Googles approach to providing proficient, while immediate, info is non based upon their own preference, merely rather that of its consumers. Based on trends on college campuses, Scott Carlson, a journalist for The Chronicle, finds the number of students using li braries has drastically decrease over the years, using the convenient virtual library at their disposal instead (Carlson 1).This infers research institute on the internet is the same, and or suffice to that acquired from a hard-back encyclopedia, periodical, etc. Therefore, while I agree with the ecumenic trend of decreased absorption Carr suggests, the internet still contributes to human potential for critical, deep thought by means of the application of habituation and the numerous online resources offering the equivalent of any printed scholarly work. My inclination to agree with Carrs theory is solely based on his reference to the work of Maryanne Wolf, a develop noetic psychologist, who elicits that the skill of deciphering exemplary characters into an understood language is non instinctive (Carr 69). Instead, in parallel to any activity one would same to develop themselves in, practicing the craft of reading plays an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains (69).The some(prenominal) interruptions encompassing the internet, such as info-thickets, e-mails, headlines, blog posts, etc., undermine the brains ability to transfer newly learned information into your long- marches memory. Multitasking by attempting to read bits and pieces of a handful of information online is non beneficial and rather proves to be a less efficient way of pre function association. According to the companionable Science Research Network, in a study of the brains ability to process various data, switching mindsets proved to incite mental exhaustion. By analyzing the affects of these assorted changes in five separate experiments, the researcher found that switching mindsets is an executive division that consumes self-regulatory resources and therefore renders citizenry relatively unsuccessful in their self-regulatory endeavors, simply concluding that it is in ones best liaison to try to change hats as infrequently as possible (Hamilton 10).Like p ass memory, the brain retains its ability to understand complex literature material only if training, or reading, is continuous. Yet, skipping out on the workouts of immersing oneself in a bookor getting caught up in the narrative will overtime deteriorate this strength, depreciating a powerful recollection into a weak grasp (Carr 67). Though I concede that skimming online undermines ones effort behind scholarly reading, I still maintain that the internet provides more benefits than detriments. The nature of technology, in general, broadens our potential to change our environment and has historically provided the power for civilizations to develop. From the former(a) 21st century to the present the World Wide Web has been that force and statistics show its presence forthwith draws a parallel to an improvement of our brainpower.According to the church bench Internet & American Life Project, seventy sextette percent of technology stakeholders and critics disagree with Carr and ac cept the statement pots use of the Internet has heighten human intelligence as people are allowed unprecedented access to more information they ferment smarter and make better choices (Anderson 1). While thirty two percent of professionals, like Association for Computing Machinery U.S. ordinary Policy Councilman Gene Spafford, think most writing online is devolving toward affectionate, throwaway notes with abbreviations and threaded references, the overwhelming majority agrees that by 2020 the internet will have boosted and advanced our ability to comprehend, inscribe and exchange knowledge (Anderson 10).These statistics are bouncy because they shed light on the long term positive effects of Google and the Internet, altering the premises people have established prior to research. The argument of advertisements being distracting and undermining the readers focus is a sensible point. Carr describes these commercials as overwhelming the mediums content with hyperlinks, blinking a ds, and other digital gewgaws, which scatter our interest and distribute our attentiveness (Carr 71). However, the law of habituation refutes this theory, stating that our response toward a stimulus lessens with increased exposure. According to the Harris Poll, threescore three percent of U.S adults completely ignore banner and search engine advertisements and ninety one percent ignore nearly all commercialized announcements (Braverman 1).The perception Carr creates of ads, specifically hyperlinks, is misleading for he depicts the internet user to have very little say, if any, and is often coerced into utilizing the resource. In reality, rather than propelling you toward related works, they merely serve as suggestions used at the expense of the consumer (Carr 67). What Carr does not draw attention to throughout his article is the fact that internet tools, like cookies, and hyperlinks, are solely approaches supporting the webs convenience. Therefore, a correlation may be between th e surfing of the internet and lower reading comprehension and concentration levels, but there is no way to measure an online readers intent and correspond it to the depth of what they read. Carr is mistaken because he overlooks the serving nature of the internet and attempts to draw parallels between Google and Taylorism.The industrial choreography of Taylorism suggests that in order to achieve utmost results, an individual system of work must be established (71). By drawing this comparison, he abruptly disregards human ingenuity, depicting internet users as cookie cutters following the perfect algorithm to suit our requests (72). As Peter Norvig, Google Research Director, conveys, Taylorism shifts responsibility from worker to management, institutes a standard method for each job/Google does the opposite, sack responsibility from management to the worker, encouraging creativity in each job (Anderson 2). While Carr presents a adequate case to support his dilemma, his tendency to prove the null hypothesis of Google is overly pessimistic.His argument that the long term influence of the internet on our comprehension and concentration will be damaging is blemished. Although researching online may not be traditional, exposure to information we intentionally choose to look at only leads to obtained knowledge we did not know before. I italicize intentionally to make a point the medium of information people use is based on their preference. When discussing reading over scholarly literature versus scanning for a quick answer, the fact is both are optional at the disposal of the consumer.In response to advertisements being distracting, not only are there web sites containing few, if any, but humans generally ignore them as well. Thus, if it were definitively straightforward that the intelligence Google provides was overall harmful, the blame could not be put on the corporation. Instead, the people whom the business cohere to are at fault. Because of these reasons, and the strong correlation between the internets unlimited amount of knowledge and improving intellect, Google and the Web as a whole are large contributors to human potential.Works CitedBraverman, Samantha. be Advertisers Wasting Their Money? PR Newswire. Harris Interactive, 3 Dec. 2010. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. Carr, Nicholas. Is Google Making Us Stupid? The New liberal arts Reader. Ed. Richard E. Miller and Kurt Spellmeyer. 4th ed. Boston Wadsworth, 2012. 67-74. Print. Carlson, Scott. Technology As Students Work Online, Reading Rooms Empty knocked out(p) Leading Some Campuses to Add Starbucks. The Chronicle. The Chronicle, 16 Nov. 2001. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. Hamilton, Ryan, Kathleen Vohs, Tom Meyvis, and Anne-Laure Sellier. Being of Two Minds Switching Mindsets Exhausts Self-Regulatory Resources. Social Science Research Network. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 18 Dec. 2010. Web. 23 Sept. 2012. Rainie, Lee, and Janna Anderson. Future of the Internet IV. Pew Internet & American L ife Project. Pew Research Center, 19 Feb. 2010. Web. 23 Sept. 2012.