User:RM395/Course/Carr discussion

Discussion of Nicholas Carr's article Is Google Making Us Stupid

Carr is a sometimes polarizing writer and one of the more vocal critics of the ways we use technology. Weigh in with your own thoughts on the arguments he presents here. Are there particular points you strongly agree or disagree with?

Speculation and Information Overload

It feels like many of the points about the future of information technology and the potential dubious goals of Google's attempts at creating AI are working under very limited points of fact and the author is making far too many assumptions that seem to be somewhat wild speculation. The way the human mind interacts with and is affected by technology is very interesting. Information overload from computers and the internet affecting things like concentration and attention spans are a potentially huge problem that developed places in the world will definitely need to address. Losing the ability to gain information from an entire medium (e.g. books) would be quite the detriment if the people adapt too sharply to newer technologies and forsake the old.--Jeflicki (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Information overload is an interesting concept to me. I definitely think it affects attention spans and concentration, but I also think there are many other factors involved that Carr doesn't address. Yes, technology and the Internet are partially to blame, but that's not the full picture. Kslinker5493 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel that information overload and the fact that everything is easily accessible on the internet does have an important impact on concentration and attention spans. For example before the internet, if teachers in middle/high school assign work related to a book to read like To Kill a Mockingbird, people would need to read it to understand what's going on. But now, with the availability of chapter by chapter synopsis on the internet on sites such as CliffNotes, more people would be inclined to read a summary of it, since it's much faster than reading the actual book itself. Like Kslinker was talking about how technology leads us to a much faster pace in lifestyle, people would want the information faster and therefore would be more likely to look up a summary and digest that instead. --MangoDango (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

When he talks about the future of technology and the goals of Google to create a AI seems like a stretch and a lot of his other claims seem very improbable as well. A lot of his assumptions on the future are based on just and a few facts so it seems like most of it could be made up. I found his statements on how the human mind interacts with technology to be very interesting. I find the idea of how we read information as using different parts of your brain to be quite a logical one and reasonable. While reading this article I found my self getting distracted and skimming through it just like the article said happens when people read things more than a few paragraphs. So I think that the internet is affecting our ability to concentrate and to keep our attention on things. I also think that people lacking the ability to read long and complex books as detrimental to our society because some of our greatest cultural achievements are books.--Youngpenn (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I too found myself getting distracted while reading the article! I think he really does have a point about the connection between reading styles and the brain, especially when thought about in terms of our "instant gratification" culture and ADD,etc.--Tabbboooo (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes this was the longest article ever. I have no idea what this guy was talking about but I grasped enough to agree here that everything needs to be shorter, faster, and easier to process. I don't think this makes us "stupid" necessarily- it's just the evolution of our brains. But I can't concentrate on this right now. --Tinaface86 (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Blame

It seems to me that the Carr is blaming not being able to focus and read longer articles on the existence of technology. To me, technology may lead to a different lifestyle that is faster pace and has more things going on at once just because of accessibility, but I don't think the technology itself is to blame. He says himself that technology helped him as a writer tremendously, so he is benefiting from it. He also talks about "taking on the qualities of the technology" which matches what I am saying about the culture being to blame and not the technology itself. We, as humans, take on the qualities of the quicker technology, so our brain does jump from thing to thing as we try to do many things at once. However, I don't agree with him when he says we are losing the quiet spaces and filling them with "content." Technology opens so many doors for us as a society, and if the one drawback is that we move at a quicker pace, I think it is a fine price to pay. Kslinker5493 (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You have an interesting point and for the most part I agree. Technology has provided us with instantaneous access to all sorts of readings. We can download PDFs of books and articles, we can read books using Kindle, and we can often take these readings anywhere we go. With these technologies we should be reading all the time! However, I think (following how you said culture) it's our current state of social media that is driving us to jump around in our reading. From Facebook statuses to Tweets to Youtube clips, people are no longer reading huge amounts of information. (Maybe cumulatively we are, but I don't count that.) I know people who get their news from Twitter. This means each news brief they read is conveyed in 140 characters or less. People get used to obtaining information in such short bursts. I can understand Carr's point because our technology certainly doesn't help by having these snippets of info available at all times, but it's definitely our culture that augments the problem.--Eems.p (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A Professsional Complainer?

I remember reading this article when it first came out in The Atlantic. I guess Carr might have some points, but mostly what he has written seems petty and idiosyncratic. Carr is kind of a professional media and technology critic, and like all critics, he has to find something to criticize in order to make a living. I have been using the Internet extensively in a professional capacity for about 20 years now and have derived immense value from it as a resource for research and communication. I do a lot of scanning and quick reading in the manner Carr describes, but I also frequently do deep dives, reading long articles such as his. And I still read and enjoy full-length books. I agree that many people don't read books and in fact don't read much of anything in depth, but is that really anything new? I'm not so sure. --Brodmont (talk) 03:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. I cannot vouch for everyone, but this seems like somebody trying to make a conspiracy out of nothing. That is the nature of the internet to be convenient. It is easy to get on and find something out real quick by skimming and being done. I have no problem with reading books in print and the only reason it is hard for me to read long articles online is because of the strain back lighting from a computer puts on the eyes. Saying that "I can't read War and Peace" anymore is an extreme exaggeration. He talks like finding something on the internet in five minutes instead of searching through books for a few days is a bad thing. The internet cuts things out that are not important and gets to the core. That is not always a good thing but for the casual reader it is all they need. If someone is interested in something, they are going to read an article regardless of length and not stop reading because it is too long. There are times when people do skim when they shouldn't, but the majority of people reading blogs and articles on the internet are casual readers. If something was terribly important to read, I am sure they would be able to get it in print, and I am sure they would not say "This is too long, I can't possibly read this."--SJRick (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd imagine most of us in this class would have a problem with this article. A good number of us are in English/Communications, and also part of an Internet-obsessed generation. (I don't mean that in a bad way.) I'd argue that we're the magical hybrid. I believe that the Internet has changed the way we absorb information, but I don't think the "old way" of thinking is dead. It has never been easy to delve into deep, contemplative reading. And most people I know would rather do just about anything before reading War and Peace. Sure, the Internet is convenient, but that doesn't mean contemplation is dead. It is indeed possible to flip back and forth between "Internet thinking" and "novel thinking." But I am persuaded that there IS a difference -- I struggle to write papers in Google Docs instead of Word -- just the interface changes the way I think and write. But... let's be honest... It was a little ridiculous for Carr to write that absurdly long article about how difficult it is to read absurdly long articles.Luna002 (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Attention Grabbing Culture

I actually agree with many of Carr's ideas. Although technology has brought about a plethora of advancements and achievements for human kind, his discussion of reading styles and brain activity really do make sense. Think about the spike in ADD, and how it has become so commonplace within the internet age. Not just ADD, but the scanning and scoping he mentions. We've all been there, done that. We are completely overloaded with information in today's society, and it obviously has affected our attention spans. We are entering into an attention economy. We expect what we read to grab our attention. If it doesn't, we can get frustrated, and resort to scanning or not reading at all. Information without technology required you to read pieces in their entirety or chapters maybe. Regardless, it was harder and required more brain power than typing a word into a page search bar. Technology makes things more convenient. Convenience isnt always a good thing. We need to make maximum use of our brain cells, and I think technology is slowly but surely changing our way of processing and recalling information. I do agree with Brodmont in the sense that deep reading and thinking can take place on the internet. However, I do feel that in the terms of society, the internet is doing more harm than it is helping. Call me old fashioned, but I think decreased human interaction, constant visual fixation on computer screens, having search and scan features, etc and living in an increasingly intangible world is having and will have bad effects on the brains of our population. Artificial intelligence scares me! I definitely do NOT think an artificially intelligent brain is better to have attached to your head. Go ahead and call me crazy :) --Tabbboooo (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm a little all over the place with this. If I find a great book I can definitely sit down and read through completely absorbed. But at the same time...most of the time I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I skim. I prefer to get to the information as quickly as I can with as little superfluous text as possible. Sometimes it's just my eyes preferring to read print rather than on a computer screen, but often times it's just impatient as well. I do feel that as I've gotten older I actually seem to be using my brain less and less. Somehow I'm using a smaller percentage of my brain, and the times I really start to notice this discrepancy is when I'm called to create. Creativity requires a certain level of connectivity and open thinking, and sometimes I just feel blocked out by my own brain. This may have other factors, but there's no doubt the modern mindset has affected me. It's especially frightening considering how the future generations will be even further absorbed in the digital world. Even for people my age I was running late with technology and may still be considered a Luddite for 20-somethings. I got my cell phone late, at age 18, and to this day I still don't have a fully decked out smartphone (4G, Internet everywhere, photo text, etc). I didn't even get to using the Internet until I was 14, and now kids are doing all of above before the age of 12. Recently I've a new found love for reading old plays, and while it's been great finding them on the Internet for easy access, I still found myself reading very quickly. I've always been a fast reader, but nowadays I'm actually slowed because I find myself skimming and needing to fight to focus. It's been difficult trying to find focus in life since the lack of focus bleeds into other aspects of life from my studies and even social life (I found myself blanking out when chatting with friends, though maybe I just find them uninteresting lol). No matter what, I have recently been struggling to challenge myself and expand my thinking processing power. It's so difficult trying to be creative when I've been programmed to find the quickest and shortest path to an answer. --Seannator (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I mention how difficult it was to read those entire two paragraphs without any memes to break it up? Seriously, we gotta pick up our entertainment efforts on these discussions... That is to say -- hello, my fellow internet-fearers! (That's not a word. But it's ok, I'm on the internet.) I wonder if there's something intrinsic in one person that makes them more likely to be overwhelmed by technology than another. Sometimes I already feel like the stereotypical grandparent. "When I was a kid, we didn't spend all our time texting our friends. We had to go outside and be in the sunlight! We were happier then!" The constant flow of communication and information can be exhausting to some -- apparently including Tabboooo(etc), Seannator and me. Not only is it emotionally exhausting, but it seems to be somewhat damaging to our mental processes. I agree with Seannator -- it's difficult to force ourselves to take the time to critically analyze information when we've been programmed to seek the quickest answer. That idea actually inspired a recent class project I did: "Jane Austen for the Internet Age." My explanation was that we live in this world where the reading of an entire novel is too time-consuming for most people, but all they really need to be culturally competent is a Sparknotes, watered-down version of popular novels. So I created memes, infographics, webcomics, and autocorrect fails giving the highlights of Jane Austen's works, providing people all they need to know about Jane Austen to get by in conversation without ever having to pick up the books. My grandmother would be ashamed.Luna002 (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

rofl...loved your response there. Here's to a future where we allow ourselves to be creatively constructive and well-paced while utilizing the access to greater available information to its fullest. I guess I could've just said YOLO but again grandmothers. --Seannator (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I Still Read

I thought one of the most interesting points was how he has trouble reading a length article anymore. I am curious to see what research will say about this in the future because ADHD is becoming more and more common and maybe this is the cause of it. Or perhaps the internet is the reason that ADHD has come about in the first place. I would have to say that I personally am an avid internet user. I am on the internet each day more than a person should be between school, work, and my personal time. I can still get thoroughly lost in a good book though. My most recent book was the "Dance with Dragons" the fifth installment of the fire and ice series. I can spend literally a whole day sitting there and get lost in the book. I am curious why he cannot find the ability to enjoy reading as he used to. I understand that some people don't like reading but I didn't realize that people could go from liking it to not liking it. Maybe the real issue isn't that he doesn't like reading anymore but rather he never liked reading to begin with. Perhaps it was just gaining new information and growing his source of knowledge that he enjoyed and thus with the internet he can do that much more quickly and horizontally rather than vertically. --MartellRedViper (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think part of the reason I have trouble agreeing with Carr on this article is that I use the Internet for a good amount of time each day and yet, I can still focus on reading a book. I simply think there are too many other factors involved if you can't focus on lengthy readings and you can't just blame the Internet. It may be one of the factors, but its benefits outweigh the detriments. Kslinker5493 (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with Carr but I see what he is getting at when he stated that he has trouble reading a lengthy article now. The internet has consumed a lot of our time because of advance technology and ready information. I believe that our generation now is solely information or knowledge based driven. We are quicker to google or search via internet and "find" key elements instead of wasting our time reading a whole article due to the overload of information and knowledge that is now readily available. I am a avid internet user and sometimes I glance through articles to find the information I sought after instead of enjoying the luxury of the article as a whole. This is a common problem but it shows how we are evolving to more of a information driven generation. Those who do take pleasure in reading will continue to do so, but for the typical and average person, information is key to anything. Time is another reason that reading has become obsolete. We have so much articles and readings now, that it is impossible to read everything in its entirety and/or reading hasn't just became unlike but unnecessary in gaining understanding and getting the overall picture.

--Isaiahgee (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pancake People

At first I thought this article might be your sort of typical "people don't read anymore" type article. I think that with the internet, whether it be reading Wikipedia articles or Twitter posts, people still read quite a bit. Carr's article doesn't dispute this, he even states that today we probably read more than we did in the 1970s and 80s. What he says is that the way in which we read is what has changed, and that people are dismissive about reading if the "efficiency" and "immediacy" of the information we read. On one hand, I think our ability to access such a vast range of information is great because we can become knowledgeable about many different topics. What I thought was especially interesting in Carr's article was the section about the concept of "pancake people", or in other words, when we take in all of this variety of information, we spread ourselves too thin and don't really interpret and understand the knowledge we take in. I hadn't necessarily thought of this idea, but I think there is a grain of truth to it. --Eng395jy (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't read. I did as a kid and I don't do it anymore. My reading consists of ESPN and IGN articles. I am definitely a pancake person. As an avid internet user, I am constantly bouncing from one web page to the next. I'll start off reading about how the Wii U is redefining Nintendo and merely seconds later I'm perusing through a list of the top 25 Super Nintendo games of all-time. In the study done at University College London, the authors mention the term "power browsing". They say that people do not read in the traditional way anymore, but that we just power browse. This is SO true. I am guilty of this. I want the information quick and easily so I can move on. I'll sometimes skip watching a video review of a video game, and just power browse through the entire written review in half the time. And back on the subject of breakfast delights, I do feel like I know a little about a lot of things. I can hold my own with almost anyone in a conversation about something because I know so many things. The internet is definitely the culprit. Because I power browse, I can quickly move on to read something else online. (We need to be more like waffle people, yanno?) --Thepresidenthal (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Some people read and some people don't. Some people read books and some people read sports articles. So what else is new? People choose to live their lives in different ways and to consumer different kinds of content in different ways. Why lament that reality? I personally think my life is vastly enriched because I read books, but I understand that other people choose to live their lives differently. Often when friends visit our home, they look around in awe at the walls filled with bookshelves. One of the typical comments is, "Wow, have you really read all these books?" I smile, because to me our home library is quite limited and we have actually offloaded many books over the years just because of limited space for shelving them. Also, in reality, many of the books I keep are for reference. So sometimes the reply is, "Actually, the most important books are the ones I haven't read." --Brodmont (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That term "pancake people" really stuck with me, too. I think that's the best way to describe the Internet — information overload. The Web is a really disruptive technology. It got sprung onto everyone so quickly that we didn't have too much time to absorb what was happening. People get addicted to things like Facebook and Twitter because we're fascinated by the innovation. Over time, though, we'll learn to slow down and to use technology in moderation so that we don't spread ourselves too thin. --Information-01152001 (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I found the term "Pancake people" very interesting and after hearing his explanation I thought it was a pretty good description of what was going on. The internet provides us with so much information that we don't truly understand what we are reading. Many people don't truly understand any one subject we all just know just enough to be dangerous. --Youngpenn (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Evolution of Efficiency

I strongly disagree with Carr’s believe that technology is somehow making us stupid. Much like wild animals grew sharp teeth and other vicious traits throughout evolved, humans grew complex nervous systems. Our brains created the Internet, powerful guns, weather-proof homes for a reason. These inventions are our “sharp teeth.” It’s true that many of us would be screwed if the Internet were to shut off tomorrow, but lions would be screwed if their teeth were to fall out, too. I feel confident that the same species who created the Internet can relearn the basic information we Google each day. There is one particular excerpt toward the beginning that I enjoy: “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.” I agree with this completely. It’s difficult for me to get through longer works these days. But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this. Older articles were forced to include deep background information so that the point of the article was understandable. Now you can write, “Most recently, ________,” etc., and hyperlink to the background information. The 17-year old kid who just sold Summly to Yahoo! for $30 million is a perfect example of the speed-reading culture. It’s all efficiency — the same way I feel when I have to walk miles instead of drive. --Information-01152001 (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Staccato

His use of the word "staccato" in terms of reading is great. We've definitely turned into a society of staccato readers. It's true for me personally and I'm sure it's true for other readers out there. When I have an article I have to read for class, I read the introduction and conclusion to see if I can get the information I need without reading the read of the article (and even then I'm scanning these sections). When I'm researching I get most of my research from the abstract of papers. Every once in a while I will find an article that captures my attention, but this is rare. We're such a visual culture that we like to have the most important information arranged in one spot in an easy to comprehend format. I LOVE infographics, I can obtain facts and statistics just from looking at a picture and a few words and number. I can jump from element to element without having to read through dense sentences and paragraphs. Carr is absolutely right that our attention span is dwindling, we're so used to small clips of information that when we have to read something larger it's like running a marathon when your only training is meandering with your dog down the road.--Eems.p (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Infographics and pictures are my favorite part about reading, especially when I read about sports. Rather than look through pages of Sports Illustrated, I always look for graphics with stats of players/coaches/teams or pictures with photo captions. I just don't have patience and I too think Carr is right about society's attention span dwindling.--Jastout (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Socrates Reference

To start off, I completely agree with Carr's assessment of how reading has changed. I'm an English major and a terrible reader. I hate to read. Mostly because if I get an assignment that's more than a few pages I put it off, look at it negatively and don't absorb the information, or just not read it at all. There are books that I'd really like to read, but they don't have pictures or graphics so it takes a lot for me to sit down a read a book. Even on the internet, if I see that the scroll bar on the side of the screen is really small, I'll just skim an article. The part of his article that really hit home or me was his mention of Socrates' "Phaedrus, how Socrates was opposed to writing and preferred storing the information from reading from memory. " Socrates said they would “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful; receive a quantity of information without proper instruction;filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom.” Carr is totally right about the way in which we read has changed. It's a real shame. If you ask most college student if they read their assigned reading, in this day and age, I would bet at least four out of ten would say that they "skimmed" the material and didn't really grasp the true meaning of the assignment.Jastout (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's all about the topic

For me, it's all about the topic of the reading. I'm more likely to read a novel about something supernatural than I am to read something that is required for my women and literature class. I don't think technology is to blame because even if I didn't have the internet, I still wouldn't be interested in Emily Dickinson. If I'm not interested in the subject that I'm reading about, then nine times out of ten I'm just going to skim it. I find it ironic that Carr wrote a really long article about how people aren't really reading anymore. I did enjoy his quote about the scuba diver and the jet ski, though. Rebaduck (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is ironic that Carr wrote such a long article considering his topic of discussion, thats all I could think about the whole time I struggled to read it. Struggling to read it also relates to your first point that it is about the topic. I really had no interest in this topic so was hesitant to read it and found myself wanting to skim it, but because we had to read it to write our discussion I simply struggled for much longer than I should have to read it.--Ryenocerous (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I can also relate when it comes to reading something that interests me vs. something that doesn't. If I am reading a book that is really interesting to me I would most likely finish it within a day (I actually did this with two of the Twilight novels). But if it's something that does not interest me at all, it would take me much longer. --MangoDango (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I can relate

I personally agree with Carr's point that reading has changed. I am an English major and don't think I have ever actually read an entire book or reading assignment for a class because it is way to easy to get an analysis online using a website like sparknotes, or even wikipedia sometimes, and absorb all of the important information. I have been able to do just fine in classes using this method, so in this way I do agree that online reading has changed the way people read. However, I personally hate reading articles online, like this one for instance. It took me forever to actually sit down and concentrate and fully finish the article. This could be in part because it was lengthy and I just find reading online to be more difficult that reading text. In the case that I am assigned online articles for a class, I have to print them off because I just find it too difficult to read them online. Usually, I will skim articles and readings regardless of whether they are online or in text. As someone else mentioned, I too find it ironic that Carr is discussing how people no longer read and then writes an article of this length. --Ryenocerous (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)