Nick Carr: Is Google making us stupid?

(Credit: The Atlantic)

It's not yet on the Web, but In the the July issue, The Atlantic has an exceptional and provocative article by Nick Carr, asking "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" It's a riff on Carr's book, The Big Switch (reviewed here), but covers new ground and has me worried. Carr writes:

The human brain is almost infinitely malleable...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...The brain...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.

"Excellent!" you say, "Now I'll be able to retrieve an infinite amount of information, like Google." Maybe. Or maybe our ability to retain and process information will continue to dwindle. Remember books? Those were the things we read before e-mail, Web browsing, and Twitter came on the scene.

Speaking of Twitter, am I the only one who views it as further evidence of a soundbite culture that struggles even to think beyond 140-character blips?

We really don't want to think like Google. We don't want to speak like Twitter. We don't want to converse like e-mail. And yet we increasingly do, as the Internet reshapes the world in its image. Carr writes:

The Internet promises to have particularly far-reaching effects on cognition...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 recreated 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 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.

Which is why I'm returning to my books. I read a fair amount--the classics, mostly--but generally only when I'm traveling. As Carr points out, I, too, have difficulty reading when my computer beckons with instant gratification. I read each night to my kids before they go to bed, but Carr's article has me thinking that I need to return to doing the same.

Over the weekend, the Asays determined that we're going to have "reading time" each night for an hour before bed. Everyone (except my 5- and 3-year-old) will read for an hour. My kids were already doing this. The change is for me and for my wife. I need to exercise my brain to think again, and not merely process.

Care to join me? Or is the concern overblown?

[Len Bullard]

It works both ways. Google is infinitely malleable and plastic (not a new thought BTW and not original with your citation).

IOW, we are making Google stupid. Consider that a company named 'Google' didn't have far to fall.

[DarkHawke]

Not to diss books or the simple joys of off-line reading (I do quite a bit myself), but I really hate these neo-Luddite screeds from elitist pseudo-intellectuals who not only think they're all that, but do their best to prove the point by railing against the evolution of technology. I can do and learn so much more today with internet access than I could ever do in my youth with my library card, it ain't even funny. One might look more learned and scholarly in the latter activity, but you'll take forever to learn that way what the former path will deliver in mere seconds.

The internet, technology, Google, et al. are not responsible for the dumbing-down of our society. It's folks like Mr. Carr who support public school systems taking an ever-increasing share of our hard-earned to deliver adults into our society who are taught neither facts nor skills or even critical thinking. They're just propagandized with whatever extremist drivel that's been proclaimed relevant by the self-nominated intelligentsia, like, well, Mr. Carr himself! Funny how it all comes around like that, eh?

[dogmacritique]

Honestly i think were forgetting the other element of the internet as it exists right now2. You are correct in saying that the internet has brought us away from some of the more 'socially intelligent' activities. However, as you can see your article is posted on the internet for people to read and provoke intelligent thought. In that case it has broaded the minds of readers, alike. It is websites and postings like these or similar to the whole cognitive effort that show a positive reflection on the internet.

[qnet]

I doubt that you can actually learn more. You can learn a thin veneer about hundreds of times more things, but with information in soundbite-sized chunks, you can't learn more.

[BIGELLOW]

Saying that Google is making us stupid is like saying that information makes us stupid. Twenty years ago, if you wanted to know what a word meant, you had to lug out the big 'ol dictionary. Hopefully your family had one. If you heard someone mention something about a lemur, and didn't know what they looked like, you had to lug out your copy of an encyclopedia. Hopefully your family had one.

If you started having some health issues, it was the middle of the night, and these health issues weren't life threatening... but you were concerned, not knowing what was going on... you lugged out the big 'ol medical book. Hopefully your family had one.

Google merely reflects what we already did, but just in a more physically convenient manner. Now, rather than lugging out a big 'ol book and flipping to the index to look up the keyword in order to find the pages relevant to your inquiry, we just type in our words to generate a similar list. Instead of only finding answers from the few books we might have in our own home, we find answers from millions of sources from all around the world.

To put this into perspective, think about calculators. Before calculators (and slide rules,) you had to know how to manually perform math on paper. When slide rules came out, more complex math could be easily done on a device - you just had to know how to use it. Once calculators came out, everyone forgot how to use slide rules properly. Everyone was still getting the right answer, they just started forgetting how to get to that answer on paper or using a slide rule. So, if anything, calculators have made people "stupid" in that sense. Take away the calculator, and people won't know how to figure out the square root of 5.

So, prior to Google, we needed to know how to find a book on a shelf, how to find information inside of that book, and how to read that information and comprehend it. Once Google entered the picture, this hasn't changed a whole lot. People still need to know how to find the source of information (by properly formulating their query,) they need to know how to read the results, and how to comprehend the information. At best, Google just made people forget about that "index" at the end of most reference books.

What Google HAS done is given us all access to even more information, with the help of the Internet, of course. What would make us "stupid" is if we all started using screen readers, which read the results back to us. Eventually, we'd all forget how to read. Then, if voice commands could be given, we'd all forget how to type.

Even if this does become the case, does it really mean we are becoming "stupid"? Or are we just adapting to the times? Evolving. Should we call ourselves "stupid" because cars made us forget how to walk far distances? Should we call ourselves "stupid" because we have forgotten how to take care of ourselves and rely on doctors? Should we call ourselves "stupid" because we listen to digital music instead of analog music and no longer know how to appreciate sound? Maybe this is the way you think. An alternative way of thinking is that anyone who doesn't know how to adapt is "stupid". Anyone who feels so uncomfortable about changing to live in the new environment is "stupid". Anyone who reverts back to the old ways of doing things is clearly at the back of the pack, too afraid to step out of the cave. Anyone who turns off the computer and reaches for a book, thinking that they are somehow doing something more intelligent, has convinced themselves that information printed out is somehow different than information on a glowing screen. Information is information. How about you become even less "stupid" and put down that high-tech printed book and reach for a stone tablet.

[gerrrg]

Google is a horrible enabler! Why just the other day, I was able to read all the stories, find all the websites and images I wanted, and it left me with a ton of hours left over for the day. I ended up engorging myself with the guilty pleasure known as Craigslist personals. Jenny doesn't like dogs, but 420 is acceptable, and Leslie won't date anyone under 5'9. Chris thinks she's HWP, but let me tell you, she's 100% BBW! Damn you, Google!

[john55440]

Here is a list of the "100 Best Novels", by The Modern Library:
http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

And here is Time Magazine's "All Time 100 Novels" list:
http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/the_complete_list.html

Of course, don't forget the older classics too, such as those available in the Barnes & Noble Classics series.

[Zotnix]

I suppose to make an analogy:

Before books we had to memorize information told to us. Books enabled us to access that information. We no longer had to memorize said information.

Therefore, books are making us more stupid.

[Jimm1]

Don't be jumping to the conclusion that everybody, or even the majority is just like yourself. The Internet hasn't reached ALL of the population of the world yet. There are still millions of people out there who have never even touched a computer, let alone immersed themselves in cyber-culture.
It's all about balance. The internet vs books in libraries vs physical interaction with other people. Don't favor one to the exlusion of all others.

[supersxp]

hmmm,
nicky...what can i say...
it seems there are two sort of people.....apple/google kind and microsoft kind....(this is how the world will split...)
and the first just don't get the second and vice versa......
am the first kind .....and i just .....don't get u nick.....any reasoning would be unfruitful to say the least...

[punterjoe]

Sure. The internet is making us stupid, just as the industrial age made us weak, literacy killed storytelling, and the phonograph killed live music. Get some perspective you Luddites.

[amandachuck]

Printed all text books are a temporary technological device that are used to cheaply organize thought into a form that can be readily shared with others and stored for future reference. While there are scholars who make books out to be the end all be all of intellectual pursuit, they are no such thing. They are just "the technology they grew up with." In fiction, they have no greater or lesser value than a TV show or movie. There are very few truly great classic books just as there are very few truly great classic films, and yes, even some television programs elevate to a status higher than the medium. This book bias is made quite clear reading the book "understanding comics." It's an intellectual pursuit of comic history and points out that only pure art (no words) or pure prose (no pictures) is considered "important" by the literati, even though there is no basis for making that distinction in the historical record of man. For example, a graphic novel illustrating MacBeth is of no less value than the text alone, and some might argue it has more value. But because it's not a pictureless old book, it would not be taken seriously by those who set school curriculums. Yet, would not everyone agree that if high school students were given graphic novels of shakespeare, with the same exact text, they would be enthusiastic about them and "get it" faster? Would they be able to read 2 or more plays a year in the time it takes to read 1? Would Dickens be digestible if it were multi-media? Or are we supposed to buy the fact that every word is precious in his works, even though he rambled on endlessly solely because he was being paid by the word. And this brings up the fundamental question: are we really reading less? Or has what we read only been shifting away from what academia considers worthy? I spend a lot of time on the internet, and I believe I read far more than when I was younger. For better or worse.

[mchally]

Oh, the hyperbole! Fear of technology!

Someone needs to add this to his reading list:

Postrel, Virginia: The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress

[mchally]

Thanks to CNet for reformatting my message! The author was Virginia Postrel. The title was "The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise, and Progress."

[markk02474]

Online search was just next in a trend: Newspapers with catchy healines; Encyclopaedias vs. reference sources; Home health guides vs. medical journals; TV sound bites vs. newspapers; pop music vs. classical; Cliff Notes, Reader's Digest, audio books.

Printed matter got dumbed down first, then TV, and now internet. Or, as journalists might call it: More accessable.

[skeptic_on_the_run]

I think what Mr. Carr is concerned about is people's ability to figure things out before knowing the answer. My mother always sent me packing to a dictionary when I asked her the meaning of a word I did not know. And yes, it was something of a pain because an instant answer is always the sweetest thing. We - all of us - are cognitive misers (not my word). And we try ways to make thinking, deciding and judging as simple as we can. So, its not a surprise that Google is loved as well as it is. But at the same time, not having information at the tips of your fingers makes you exercise your gray cells in a way that Google cannot match (unless they are working on some cool new device to help us do that. Hey, who knows!)

Secondly, I have no way of knowing this but I guess most of the people reading and commenting on the cnet articles are 'grown ups' who have lived in a time when was no internet... where they had to read papers books and think about and guess the answers to idle curiosities as well as deeply disturbing questions. The generation of college students now entering the job market and every generation following them will never know such a world (if they live in a world of ubiquitous computing). We need to be concerned about how their minds will change because they never have to work to find their answers anymore.

[kyle5434]

I think it's good to raise the questions, and the knee-jerk reactions so far would seem to indicate a lack of measured reflection that unfortunately is indicative of the "culture of immediacy".

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, but I do think there's something to what T.S. Eliot wrote many years ago:

"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"

[jimeckh]

I enjoy reading, have a variety of interests, and try to read a book a week--though I don't always make it. I also value the internet and have Google as my home page. As a former high-school history and English teacher (teaching the Classics), I agree with your concerns about the internet generation. Many students don't even read the assigned books in schoool. One honest and outspoken student put it this way: "I don't do books." A stroke last year severely limits my ability to get around, but my wife brings a stack of books from the local libray every couple of weeks. Reading is a hobby we both enjoy. We keep up with our friends by email, and we get our news from the daily paper, TV, and the internet, but we travel in space and time through books. Both enrich our lives. I'd miss either one if it were taken away. Keep up the good work. God bless. Jim

[jrepenning]

> Speaking of Twitter, am I the only one who views it as further evidence of a soundbite culture that struggles even to think
> beyond 140-character blips?

Certainly not: so does Dana Gioia, chair of the National Endowment for the Arts (interview at http://mhadigital.org/)

[nvgeek]

I do agree with the author in one sense...
When one can't recall, for instance, what band sang the song "Turning Japanese", it's easier to turn to Google, than try and remember using our own brain power. We don't have to think, or exercise our own power of recollection any longer, Google does that for us.