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?

[abnoea]

*applauds*
Well said

[tbonespop]

Great response to this article, DarkHawke. There will always be fear of technology by the masses. Most science fiction is predicated on what can go wrong with technology. We have been programmed to fear the unknown since we were kids. I still run into people that don't let their kids play video games reminding me of when I was a kid and rock and roll was unrespectable (and now AC/DC are selling exclusively through Walmart??? Hysterical!). Progress takes you to some strange places indeed, but it's no reason to complain about amazing tools like Google.

[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.

[bkoehler--2008]

You could potentially learn more. Leveraging Google to provide direction towards foundational knowledge could accelerate learning, and rapid access to the specific information being sought might decrease the likelihood of a change in focus. Reliance on a search utility does not necessarily limit the recipient to superficial knowledge of a subject.

[Elrundir]

I really don't think that's true. At least, not for users who are willing to dig deeper to learn about the subject - because, trust me, the information *is there*. You can find websites where the level of detail on a topic is easily as advanced as any encyclopedia, and sometimes more. Nevermind the fact that it will often be more up-to-date, and probably more comprehensive, if multiple sources are allowed to weigh in and contribute. In fact, these soundbite-sized chunks you mention aren't even something I'm familiar with, except perhaps for the blurbs that Google gives you itself. But if those are the only thing somebody is using to learn about a subject that they've searched for, when they've just been given access to millions of actual websites about the topic, they're already pretty "stupid". The internet has done nothing to make them that way.

[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.

[ayandyan]

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU!:)

[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.

[exxpostfacto]

Perfect!

[andireinbrech]

I agree. One could argue that cars made us fat and lazy, fridges stopped us from milking cows every morning, and books made us dumb. If it weren't for books we'd have to remember our Gran's fairy tales, as kids we got spoilt and got given the book on our birthday. Now we don't need to remember the stories, we just (re)read them whenever we want to recall anything, and then pass the books onto our children. Condemning technological evolution because one is anal and afraid of change is daft. Rather write books on _how_ to use Google effectively, and write some wonderful science fiction on how we would one day be interfacing directly with technology by just "jacking in". That's more interesting reading than pointing fingers at technological advances. Afterall: "The only thing that is constant, is change"

[DarkHawke]

Agreed, a perfect analogy! Well said!

[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.

[huizhe2]

One of the problems with your argument against pictureless books is that when someone else decides what everything looks like, readers lose the chance to exercise their own imagination. That's also the trouble with movies: the viewer is forced to accept someone else's ideas of what everything and everyone looks like. When stories are told exclusively with words, intelligent and imaginative adults can "see" what they want to see. Only children and the inherently unimaginative require the cognitive assistance of a constant stream of pictures, moving or otherwise.

Nobody ever accused Dickens of being a poet, and anyone who's ever read his novels knows that his appeal is not his lyrical use of the language but his plots, his characters, and his cinematic descriptions.

Anti-intellectuals are always ready to attack academia and blame the educated for all the ills caused by the lazy, the greedy, the criminal, the stupid, and the self-righteous. I won't defend academia in general. Like all human constructs, it has its strong and weak points. It is good for something, but not at all good at everything it claims to be good at. Most (not all, mind you) academics are reasonably good at critical thinking, even if they come to ideological conclusions that are different from yours and mine.

[Matt R--2008]

There are different kinds of reading though. Google is great for looking up ohm's law or Obama or McCain's policy positions, or street directions, and not so much for long form narrative that makes one think about big issues like love, family, friends, history, whether there is a God, etc.

I think we need both, and if we just ditch long form books as being technologically outdated we are making a BIG mistake and will wind up shallower people with less rich lives, and will make less meaningful decisions on everything from war to our personal lives to boot.

Again I am not a Luddite I really like my dual G5 tower and Core2duo notebook, you'll pry it out of my cold dead fingers, the same for the book Slaughterhouse 5 by Vonegut, or Ubiq by PK Dick, or Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky. The same for long form CD concept albums like Sgt Peppers v.s. singles on iTunes. Books are the hour + Beethoven's 9th of text IMO and not just a dead form.

And no reading books on a computer doesn't cut it, it causes eye strain and it's impossible to get comfortable.

[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.

[BIGELLOW]

I'm trying to figure out which side you're on. If your mother refused to give you an answer in order to get you to find things "the hard way"... you basically looked up the answer in a dictionary. So, how is this different than if, today, a mother refused to give a direct answer in order for her child to find things "the hard way"... by doing a search on Google.

Grabbing a book off the shelf, flipping through some pages, and finding the answer isn't really as "hard" as, say, making sure the home has a working wireless connection, booting up the laptop and making sure it has all of the necessary Windows updates, loading the latest version of a popular web browser, understanding web addresses enough to go to google.com, then typing on a keyboard which requires an understanding of letters beyond just A-Z (think: QWERTY).

The reason Google is more convenient these days is because most of us don't sit holding a dictionary all day long, and can't easily carry our dictionaries around with us everywhere we go. A computer is in front of a lot of people a lot of the time, for purposes of entertainment, socialization, work, etc... So, it is just more convenient (and cheaper) to have all of these books we used to rely on (dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc...) right in front of us most of the time.

In any case, it seems to me that this article is confusing Google with The Internet. Google doesn't make the information... they don't write the articles... etc... they only help us find the information. If the information is making us dumber, then that is a whole other problem... that has nothing to do with Google.

[exxpostfacto]

I would argue that all of these "instant thinkers" are much better off than any previous generation. Because information is given to us so much more readily and quickly, we have to learn how to think quicker and still make good decisions. Eventually speed will increase and increase and everyone will be smarter and more fine tuned because of it. We have to leave all of our old, "safe", slow, methods behind.

[Matt R--2008]

BIGELLOW why does it have to be "sides?" Some factual information is easier to access on google, that's great and helps us evolve more quickly, hurray, etc. OTH some wisdom is hard to digest off a screen from Kierkegaard to Stephen Hawking. if we just eliminate the harder things we all lose, surely you can see that?

[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?"

[BIGELLOW]

There is a difference between intelligence and wisdom. I can look outside and see that it is raining and say "It is raining. I know this because rain is when water falls from the sky." I can also go into the details of how the cycle of evaporation and condensation works to create clouds and for the rain to return to lakes, rivers, the soil, and the ocean. In this sense, I could be said to be both observant and intelligent. However, if I walk outside in the rain without an umbrella and, as a result, catch a cold... that wasn't very wise.
-----
There is a line between someone's intelligence and their wisdom. Many people are fact-smart, but can't solve the simplest of riddles or puzzles. Some are very intelligent in terms of logic... but if you try to get them to think in an abstract way, they stare blankly.
-----
While it is great that there is now a lot of information at everyone's disposal... this can only help people to become fact-smart. However, wisdom requires life-lessons... catching a cold after walking in the rain a few times to know that an umbrella is important... or learning from others who have done the same.
-----
I don't think the Internet (especially not Google) is a threat to intelligence at all. I think the biggest threat to critical thinking are television programs or movies that portray ideas that are only meant to entertain us, but some people carry with them like a Bible for living life.
-----
Take, for instance, a typical relationship problem. If you have ever read Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, then you would know the clever "cave time" analogy the author makes. In a nutshell, most men are problem-solvers by nature. This breeds a lot of frustration in an ever complex world. To "wind down," men will often resort to their "cave" in order to face themselves with small (but easily solvable) challenges. Whether it is playing a video game, playing poker, building a deck, etc...
-----
Women, on the other hand, "wind down" from a hard day by talking about the problems. They don't necessarily want "help" with these problems... and aren't looking for a solution necessarily... they are merely talking through the problems to give them a chance to escape, so-to-speak.
-----
When you look at movies, a man playing a video game is generally seen as being immature... childish... a loaf. Almost akin to being a drug user or alcoholic. There was even an article that was out recently that said people who play World of Warcraft are more ashamed of their hobby than, say, a porn addict would be.
-----
Then, in these same movies, the wives are shown as the monarch of the family, trying to keep all of the children in line... including the video-game-playing husband. Whether the husband being portrayed is "out with the guys playing poker," etc... he is seen as a "loser" if he is essentially "winding down"... having his "cave time."
-----
Women who watch such movies take this to heart, and feel that the "perfect guy" is one who never watches sports, never plays video games, never plays poker, etc, etc... in other words, a husband who never needs to "unwind".
-----
The Internet is nothing more than a collection of the world's knowledge... right, wrong, or indifferent. What gets spewed out of Hollywood, however, is information which is solely meant to entertain... get a chuckle... shed a tear... etc... but people tend to use this "information", instead, to adjust their lives accordingly. I think that, if anything, the Internet is sorely needed for people to re-evaluate what they have seen in movies or on television... and separate the entertainment from the logic.
-----
(Note: I used dashes to separate my paragraphs. Unfortunately, this comment system lumps paragraphs together into one long clump.)

[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.

[exxpostfacto]

And this is a wonderful thing, already everyone owns an iphone, the running to the desktop is too long of a step. Soon enough the chip will be in our brain, and very quickly after that we will be free of our current conscious setbacks. Imagine a world where the computer chip remembers your friends names and faces, remembers where you live, remembers your parents and their birthdays and the things they like, remembers to eat and what to eat, and it leaves your brain to actually THINK.

Scary right?

Assuming everyone is given an education first, and is taught reason and critical thinking and is generally smart, and hoping that eventually EVERYONE can be this way, those chips would revolutionize the world in a wonderful way. No more speaking, just speak with your brain. No more remembering useless facts (parents names, your wifes birthday) and no more running to Google to retrieve them, it will all be in your head.

Of course that is in a perfect world, and it will take 10,000 years before anything is perfect.