In Is Google Making Us Stupid by Nicholas Carr on page 1 Paragraph 5 Carr states that the Network seems to be chipping away from his capacity to concentrate and contemplate. I agree with this statement because it resonates with me because I have similar struggles with focus and the internet’s barrage of information makes it hard to have sustained attention on one thing. This shows up a lot in school and work because as I look up one thing it takes me down a rabbit hole of random things and then I get distracted by them. The Internet also reshapes how we consume knowledge. It trains us to skim instead of deep diving into complex ideas. I also agree that it can diminish our ability for deep reflection on a topic and just consume short and small bursts of information. On Page 3 Paragraph 6 Carr goes on and states that the net absorbs a medium, and that medium is recreated in the net Image. I see this statement as complicated because on one hand the internet revolutionized accessibility to knowledge. This allows the media to reach more of a diverse audience and it also fosters innovation. However the down side is the oversimplification of complex content. Online content often prioritizes speed and quick consumption, which can reduce the depth of the information. While the internet makes knowledge more accessible to everyone. This shift can lead to superficial engagement with ideas. Topics that are complex tend to be simplified for easier and faster reading. On Page 5 Paragraph 4 Carr states that we rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the work and it’s our own intelligence that flattens into artificial Intelligence. While I understand where Carr is coming from about reliance on technology, I believe the human mind’s adaptability should not be underestimated. When technology is used thoughtfully, technology can boost cognitive abilities rather than diminish them. For instance, Ai tools can augment our memory and analytical capabilities, which leaves more room for creativity and strategic thinking. While there can be overdependence I believe this passage overstates the harm, and is overlooking the potential of technology to complement rather than replace human intelligence
Jaidin Fuentes
1. (Pg. 1 Paragraph 2-Pg. 2 Paragraph 1) Carr seems to be implying that we are losing our attention spans as we proceed to use the internet more often. He states he struggles to read a long article and instead skims through it and moves on quickly to find something else to read. I agree with this take. I used to be very focused in school and academics when it came to things like work and reading. But after getting access to the internet primarily through a phone that I can take out any second I want, I find myself being quickly disinterested with whatever I was learning and flocking to my device. This became very apparent when I was finally allowed to download social media applications. I quickly became addicted to the short forms of content they offered and found myself scrolling endlessly for hours. I would work on homework for thirty minutes and stop to take a break on my phone and instead spend forty-five minutes scrolling. However, since I’ve came to college, I’ve rarely been on it and have seen an improvement on my focusing abilities.
2. (Pg 4 Paragraph 4) I learned an interesting observation when it came to integrating technology into our lives. I never thought about how much of an effect the clock has had on our way of thinking and going about our day. And with that lack of thought, I failed to think about how life before the clock may have been. How did people track their time and everyday assignments? This seems like a beneficial technological advancement. The question is: Is the internet going to reform the way we live our everyday lives? The answer is it is already reforming our worlds drastically. Everyone immediately opens their phones when they need information and are greeted with it almost instantly. We go to the internet to stay connected with each other, to find information, and to find entertainment. It is so involved with our lives that we have breakdowns when we lose access to it for more than a day. So what I really want to know is how much further of an impact is it going to make and what is it going to be?
3. (Pg 7 Paragraphs 2-3) In these paragraphs, Carr speaks about philosophers and other important people who have attacked innovation due to the effects they may have. Socrates didn’t approve of writing because he believed the human brain capacity would become inefficient and that we wouldn’t be able to store as much information as before. However, he didn’t see the hugely positive impact that writing has had on the world. We use writing so often now in one form or the other that it’s impossible to stop. We need it to keep society going. Humanist Hieronimo Squariafico criticized the printing press because he believed it would lead to “intellectual laziness” and “men ‘less studious’”. He didn’t think about the long term impact of the printing press and how it would lead to millions of books being published and sent to readers all over the world. He also failed to recognize how big of an impact it had on sharing and learning information. But both men were not completely wrong either. Our brain capacities aren’t the best and we can struggle to retain information. And people have become less studious and involved in learning topics in person if they can just read about it and gain knowledge on a topic. So I think that internet does and will continue to have an overall beneficial impact on society, the main concern is how to limit the amount of negative impacts it may have.
In Is Google Making Us Stupid? by Nicholas Carr, he talks about if the use of the internet is ruining peoples abilities to think, read, learn in a normal way. They way they used to. On page one, paragraph two he talks about how he can feel his mind going. Like as if being online is messing with the way his brain works. He says he can feel it the most while he is reading because it used to be easy for him to read for long periods of time or long articles. But now he gets distracted after two to three pages of something. I can relate to that because even while reading this essay, I was reading it but my brain was not listening to what I was reading. My brain was somewhere else, probably thinking about what could be on my phone, instead of focussing on the essay in front of me.
I also agree with Carr when he writes on page two paragraph two that it is like the internet “is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation.” He says his mind is being rewired in a sense to gain information the way the internet provides it. I, too, can see that in myself. It can be hard to concentrate sometimes because things feel like they move too slowly for my brain now. I feel like the internet has caused people to have shortened attention spans since it can move from one thing to the next so quickly. People are used to short blurbs of reading, so when it comes time to read lengthy articles, books, essays, etc. it could feel like a chore to some. Being online has changed the way I think, and changed the way everyone else thinks, along with the ability to focus on things for long periods of time.
On page six in paragraph four, Carr quotes an example from Sergey Brin and Larry Page. They are the people who founded Google; in an interview, they said that we’d “be better off” with “all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smater than” yours. I find their mindsets really unsettling. Wouldn’t that basically make everyone all the same, or not have the ability to learn things on their own anymore, in their own way? It would definitely make everyone seem more robotic than human. Carr and I agree; he, too, believes it to be unsettling to think about if our brains were to be essentially replaced with artificial intelligence. In paragraph six on the same page he says it suggests”the human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.” That doesn’t sit right with me. Our brains are our own being and we don’t need to make them more artificial to “be better off.”
Journal #10: Carr journal
In response to Nicholas Carr’s essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid? I am identifying three passages I feel are centrally important to his argument and as to whether or not I agree or disagree.
Page one paragraph two, Carr explains “I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading.” With the use of technology, it’s changing the way we do everything in a way. It’s rewiring our brains, finding new ways to read, write, and think. We look for instant over long-term, we would rather skim a reading if it’s too long and like to read things in a swift manner. That’s because the more clicks on links and other websites the more money and insight a company gains. They have learned how to adjust our feeds to what we want to see to keep us digitally connected and interested, leading people to doom scroll. Our concentration has shortened, and real reading is becoming challenging. We look for the hit of dopamine we get from scrolling on the internet, getting all different kinds of information thrown at us. In physical books we have to keep reading to find out the plot or the point of the book, whereas social media will get us straight to the point, which is what we look for in today’s society.
On page three paragraph two it explains that we are reading but “it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking.” I agree as we are evolving to how the internet works. Remember our brain only remembers to do things if we practice them, and since “we may well be reading more today than we did in the 70s and 80s”, we are reading more but we are reading off the internet. Where we are given the basic facts and we go searching for more information we can consume quickly. Putting our “efficiency and immediacy” above all else.” This is putting our skills to connect and understanding of context at risk. As, “our ability to interpret text, to make rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.” I agree with this, as I struggle to hold my attention towards long articles or essays. My brain has evolved to the ways of technology. Tik Tok is a good example of fast-paced internet, each video is no longer than a couple minutes. It brings new ideas and information to me every other minute, keeping me interested. But this causes disengagement and affects my brain’s ability to read off of the internet.
On page five paragraph two, it also ties into the past two paragraphs, and I agree with Carr’s and others points here as well. Old media is slowly fading out as new media is taking over, “old media have little choice but to play by new-media rules. If the company didn’t follow new-media rules it would be seen as outdated and lengthy so people would be less likely to read or be interested. Our newspapers now are full of “easy-to-browse info-snippets.” This keeps the reader’s attention as they have lots to look at and less to read. Perfect, right! Well, it seems it, but we are just filling ourselves with useless knowledge most of the time I feel it’s consumerism in reading. We take in lots of information, but we aren’t getting anything meaningful out of it or even anything we can connect to.
“We can expect as well that the circuits woven by our use of the Net will be different from those woven by reading of books and other printed works.” This was on page three, at the end of paragraph 4. I think this is a compelling point. I agree that the internet has changed how people approach research and the general search for information. Having the internet at the tips of our fingers makes many things a lot easier, but it also can allow us to not go on deep-dives into information like we used to. I am not sure I agree with his idea that the internet is literally changing our brains. In one way, yes, because our brains are always changing with adaptation and evolution, and adapting to the internet is just one example. However, I don’t think the changes will be fundamental. As he mentions later, this is just another advancement humans have made, and will grow used to it. Although, I can’t deny the possibility that the internet has had some effects on people’s attention spans. I, personally, really hate reading the entirety of things I am not interested in, but I suppose that is alo different from what Nicholas Carr is talking about-he is talking about losing patience even with literature he enjoys.
“Still, their easy assumption that we’d all “be better off” if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling. It suggests the belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized.” This is on page 6, paragraph 6. First of all, I don’t like how Carr is using the most extreme of cases in this article. He is mentioning, I’m sure, one of the few people that think physically messing with the brain to make it “smarter” is a good, viable idea. I’m 100% sure there are people like that, but it’s not the vast majority of people. I don’t agree with a lot of this article, but I also don’t agree with this ideation. Also, is intelligence not sometimes the result of hard work? And can that hard work not be achieved in discrete steps like studying in a specific way for a test? For some people, this process can be very mechanical. There are ways to make the process more efficient for the person, which in turn helps them retain more information. I don’t think comparison to machinery in these cases is all that uncalled for, nor is it very bad.
“In the quiet places opened up by the sustained, undistracted reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas. Deep reading, Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking.” This is on page 7, paragraph 4. This is something I have to agree with. I know people who love to annotate their reading, even if it’s just a romance book, because it allows them to think more deeply about it, and come back to it in the future. I, personally, do not, but I also don’t think this is related to my access to the internet. I like to read, but I don’t like to analyze what I’m reading. Since we do so much close reading in school, I also have to agree that it aids learning; if it didn’t, why would so many classes make close reading part of the curriculum? But, why isn’t this possible with the internet? People who enjoy reading but can’t access books might find the internet a great resource for that type of reading. A lot of my reading is online for class, but I still read it just as closely as I do otherwise.
“Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages.”pg 1 paragraph 2. I Agree with this in two ways. The first way is because since I have had my concussions its much harder to read cause of my eyes and my tracking problems since my concussions messed up my eyes so much I can’t read right so I go to eye therapy. and since its so hard for me to read I tend to find my self reading but have no clue what I read because as I am reading the words I am thinking about something else. and another reason why I agree is because he is right that we are just use to typing something into google and we see the answer right away so when we have to search for the answer if we are reading so our brain isnisntt use to it so we just wanna give up right away.
“We have to tech our minds how to translate the symbolic characters we see into the language we understand”pg 3 paragraph 3. I agree with this but this also opened up my mind so much cause I never thought about this before about reading. everyone thinks its such an easy concept and people judge so hard if you mess up reading after 5th grade. but its still very hard to translate the symbols even after learning and we should not judge on that.
“the friend wrote in a letter noting that, in his own work, his “thoughts in music and manage often depends on the Quilty of pen and paper” pg 3 paragraph 6.I so agree with this because I do feel like your thoughts change on the computer because you think so much faster when your typing because you can put it down so much faster so you don’t have so much time to process it.
Paragraph 3 page 2, I agree with this paragraph. In this paragraph, Carr is explaining how he along with his friends are experiencing troubles with staying focused on reading long pieces of writing. Along with that, he believes the way he reads has changed. I agree with this, I think that Google is allowing us to just find a summary of whatever we are supposed to read and skim that instead. When having to read a long piece, we become distracted, just wanting to get to the point or end. Looking over it quickly and finding the main points of the piece, instead of focusing long enough to read it all.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 page 4, I agree with this paragraph because I think we are just always on a schedule based on someone who decided we needed to all be on the same timeframe. I agree that we let time dictate what we do and when we do them instead of allowing our bodies to tell us when we need to sleep, wake, or eat. As Carr puts it, we allow the clock to decide “when we to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise” and “we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock”. Which I believe is exactly accurate.
Paragraph 4 page 6, I’m afraid I have to disagree and do not think we would be better off with “the ultimate search engine”. If we had this AI search engine, we would always be able to just look something up. We would not have to keep any knowledge in our heads or remember things if we could just always look up the answer. Having a search engine “as smart as people-or smarter” as the founders of Google state, would allow people to stop having to think about anything or do any problem-solving on their own.
On page 2 paragraph 2, Nicholas Carr explains how the internet chips away at his capacity for concentration and contemplation. I agree with this because I see this in myself. I have very little capacity for concentration. When I read an article I get bored and distracted after the first few paragraphs. Even when I’m doing my homework I can’t focus after a certain period of time and I need a break. Then I usually spend that break on my phone. Even if I am able to focus on something as soon as I hear a notification on my phone, my focus is broken.
On page 3 paragraph 2, Nicholas Carr talks about Maryanne Wolf’s view on the internet’s effects on reading. She says that the way we skim over texts may be weakening our capacity for deep reading. We aren’t able to interpret text and make deep mental connections. I agree because when I read something I have a hard time focusing enough to truly understand what I’m reading. Therefore there’s no way I can read deeply and be fully engaged in the text. I would have to read it multiple times because I wouldn’t be able to focus fully the first time I read it.
On page 5 paragraph 1, Nicholas Carr mentions how the internet is filled with hyperlinks, ads, etc. that distract us so we can’t stay focused. I agree because I see this on my phone all the time. On social media there’s always ads and links to bring you to another site. On the internet there are always ads and links that bring you down a rabbit hole. And even games have ads that pop up every other minute. Sometimes they distract me to the point that I forgot what I was originally doing on my phone.
Page 1 paragraph 2 of Nicholas Carr’s essay “Is google Making us Stupid” he states that he isn’t thinking in the same way he used to and its felt most strongly when he’s reading. I agree with this line to a certain extent. I think that it’s true our thinking patterns can change due to influences from the internet. He claims that reading in general, which used to come easy to him, is difficult now since the use of more internet, causing him to drift away easier. I feel that too, but it’s more significant when reading things for classes, finding it difficult to fully immerse myself and my mind wandering. I often skim through readings instead of thinking deeply about them. When it comes to reading for my own pleasure though, which I frequently do, I can still enjoy it and not feel distracted or disconnected at all, I think it fully has to do with the amount of interest you previously had in what you were trying to read.
On page 2 paragraph 3, Carr states that the internet is chipping away at our capacity to concentrate and contemplate. I also only partially agree with this statement. I do feel like my ability to concentrate has become worse, and my attention span has shortened. The constant stimulation the internet provides makes me feel more drawn to it, making it difficult for me to sit down to try and focus on something and not want to go pick up my phone instead. But I think the internet also provides us with tools that can help us to find other resources to help us. If you can’t understand something that is written out the internet may have another version of that content available. Something like a YouTube video that can visually show something while also explaining it, or more in-depth articles to gain more information.
On page 5 paragraph 1 of “Is Google Making Us Stupid “Carr talks about the internet influencing a thinking style that encourages distractions and less engagement. It often involves shoving multiple different topics of information at you at once with different ads and links making you want to open more things. I agree that this information being thrown at us in this way leads to half understood topics and incomplete knowledge. I don’t feel immersed in things when they’re full of other distractions, if I have the ability to go to other tabs I’m going to fall for the distraction and lose track of what I was originally doing. While having access to all this information online can be a useful thing, it can also be hard to understand it When it is in the same space as other things I’d rather do like scroll through my Instagram or watch YouTube, it causes me to multitask, preventing me from fully absorbing anything of what I was originally trying to do.
Page 1 Paragraph 2
In this paragraph when Carr talks about what has been changing to the mind I find is important. Explaining how feeling like something has been changing and “tinkering with my brain” is a very strong thing to say. I completely agree with that statement because I also feel that way about it. When he talks about how his mind gets lost or caught up is another way to explain what the effects of this has on someone. Talking about this is so essential to what Carr wants to explain in this story of how per the title that google is making us stupid.
Page 2 paragraph 3
In this paragraph Carr explains the problems with reading to friends. When he talks about how it is hard to read to friends because of the use of the web I do not totally agree. Yes I agree the web has changed the way some people read and may cause problems to that. I feel that even though it may be tough you can still manage to read. This is vital to the whole idea Carr is trying to talk about because this is the main problem. The web is causing us to not be able to read the correct way anymore, it is causing many problems. I can feel some people in my life starting to have these problems too, even I experience these problems myself. He uses a quote from Scott Karp and I feel the quote is a perfect analogy of explaining how people do all their reading on the web and not in a normal way
Page 3 paragraph 2
In this paragraph Carr talks mainly about a saying from this woman named Maryanne Wolf. She says “we are not only what we read, we are how we read”. This quote I feel explains the whole thing Carr is trying to accomplish. When people read online we tend to just read the info and never really interpret it or take it to another level. I agree with Carr and I even agree with Wolf and what she says. The web has changed the way we read and how we even do the reading. Carr also talks about text messaging and how we do way more reading on that on our phones than anything else and I couldn’t agree more. Carr is trying to get across that the way we are reading has changed and is not for the better but for the worse. He wants people to know what the web has been doing to us.
Page 1 paragraph 2
In the second paragraph of Nicholas Carr’s essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” he expresses that his way of thinking has changed, particularly regarding reading. I resonate with this idea to some extent. Our thinking patterns can indeed be influenced by our internet habits. Carr notes that reading, which once came easily to him, has become more challenging due to frequent internet use, leading to greater distraction. I experience this, especially with class readings, where I often find it hard to engage fully and my mind tends to wander. I tend to skim rather than dive deeply into the material. However, when it comes to reading for pleasure, something I do regularly, I still find joy in it without feeling distracted. I believe this enjoyment largely depends on the level of interest I have in what I’m reading.
Page 7 Paragraph 4
In the quiet moments fostered by focused, uninterrupted reading, whether of a book or during any form of contemplation, we create our connections, draw personal conclusions, and develop our ideas. Maryanne Wolf posits that deep reading is essentially the same as deep thinking, and I wholeheartedly agree. I know people who love to annotate even a simple romance novel; this practice helps them engage more profoundly with the text and revisit their thoughts later. While I don’t annotate, I don’t believe my preference stems from my access to the internet. I enjoy reading but prefer not to analyze it too deeply. In school, we’ve done a lot of close reading, and I can see how it enhances learning; if it didn’t, why would so many classes incorporate it into their curriculum? However, this raises a question: why isn’t deep reading as easily achieved online? For those who enjoy reading but lack access to physical books, the internet can be a valuable resource. Much of my reading for class happens online, and I approach it with the same level of engagement as I do with traditional texts.
On page 2 paragraph 2 Carr, explains “for me and for many others the net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind, The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich source of information are many, and they’ve been widely described and duly applauded.” I agree with what carr explains here, a good majority of the information that I personally take in each day is from something based on the Net. We see such an incredible amount of information from online videos, through text messages, and through social media posts, or even a simple google search. My mind has become accustomed to taking in this form of information in short bursts as opposed to deeply immersing myself in educational research or a good novel. The advantages of having such an incredible source of knowledge at your fingertips at all times is more than we can even fathom, it has driven the huaman to extreme levels of efficiency and productivity and aided in so many ways. THrough the use of search engines like Google we are abl;e to know just about anything we need to or want to know, it is likely the most useful tool we have introduced to the human race in terms of survival and advancement.
On page 3 paragraph 3, Carr quotes Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts university, she says “when we read online…we tend to become mere decoders of information. Our ability to interpret text, to make mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged” I agree with this sentiment. When we read an article on our personal laptops or on our phones, even while reading this article with my phone in the vicinity it poses a distraction, a news alert, an email, an instagram notification whatever it may be poses a small distraction that disrupts our ability to continue making those connections even if just for a second. For a lot of us it becomes hard to be able to read a long article without feeling fidgety or being distracted by our surroundings, it feels as though our attention span has continued to decrease. It only makes sense as we gather small bits of information lookigg by for the instant gratification that Google and other search can provide. It does not take effort to plug in a question and get instant feedback that is tailored to exactly what you need. Even the media that we entertain ourselves with have become short clips in the form of instagram reels or Tik Tok videos that often last no more than 30 seconds. We are becoming hardwired to have a shorter attention span due to the frequent use of the internet.
Finally, on page 5 paragraph 3 Carr states that “ never has a communication system played so many roles in our lives – or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts – as the internet does today. Yet, for all that’s been written about the net, there’s been little consideration for how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us.” I agree with this too, our cellphones and other devices practically rule our lives. They play crucial roles in decision making, whether as a support or as something negative they provide us the means to be able to support many of our daily activities from travel, to finance, to information gathering, to eating, and even our ability to sleep. For such a small thing that plays such a crucial role it is surprising to me that there has not been more consideration as to how this heavy usage has truly impacted us. We think about our phones constantly. For me and many others when we wake up, the first thing we look at is our phones whether it is for the time or to check the weather or our social media platforms. This obsession that has become such a normal part of our lives cannot be described as anything but an addiction. Is this technology really making us stupid as we increasingly become more reliant upon it?
Page 2, Paragraph 2
I agree with this passage. Carr states that technology is both a blessing and a curse. He explains that technology brings a convenient and widespread array of information, but there is a cost. It alters our way of thinking and taking in information. He even said it is “…chipping away at my capacity for concentration and contemplation.” I can relate to this. I can’t remember that I read through an entire article or research paper unless I was forced to. It’s like my attention span has decreased or something. I used to read lots of books for fun up until high school. After that, I just read whatever was mandatory for a class. The only time I remember reading whole passages without being forced was for my physics class. I did it to study, but it was also like I was pouring pure information into my brain. I didn’t skim through it because everything on the page was relevant and important.
Page 3, Paragraphs 2-3
My response is complicated for this passage. Carr starts by saying that we may be reading more now than we did in the 70s-80s. I disagree with this statement. Although we may be seeing more words on our screens, the actual reading and absorption of writing is lacking. It’s as if the more resources of information we are given, the less motivation we have to use them properly. I guess we are just taking it all for granted nowadays. I am definitely guilty of this, too. Carr also states that “circuits woven by our use of the Net will be different from those woven by our reading of books and other printed works.” I agree with this. The way our brains view information will highly depend on its source. For example, one person who mainly uses Google as a source of information will have a different way of memorizing information than someone who uses physical literature.
Page 6, Paragraph 6
I agree with this one. Carr says that it is unsettling to hear that Google would prefer if everyone had brains supplemented with artificial intelligence, or if we were replaced entirely with them. This is one hundred percent true. We have little control over what happens on the internet already. Having less control over my brain, body, and thoughts is terrifying. Even if Google was technically correct, their idea is very unethical. Also, I think that society is doing pretty well without having bionic body parts. And the fact that Carr compared the brain to “…an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive” is truly the most unsettling thing in his essay. The world has already been progressing at a fast pace, so why would we consider something so outlandish? This whole thing reminds me of a microchip experiment I heard about a while back. I just thought, why would you willingly put a trackable piece of a tech that you do not understand into your body? I think this goes back to the idea of control. Many people, including myself, fear having less control over themselves and their lives.
Page 3 Paragraph 2: I agree with what Carr has written in this paragraph, though this is a portion that uses the words of another person. In this paragraph, he is using the words of Maryanne Wolf who is a developmental psychologist at Tufts University to support his claims. She says that the internet puts efficiency and immediacy above everything else and because of this we are lacking in our ability to interpret text, make rich mental connections, and read without distraction. Connecting this to my own life and what I have seen in others, I can say the majority of people fall within this generalization. We look at words and read them, but we do not always strive to find a deeper meaning and make strong connections to other things or to our lives. The internet is changing the way we function and it appears to be changing the way we process information and think, as well.
Page 5 Paragraphs 5-6: I agree with Carr’s perspective in these paragraphs. In this portion of the essay, Carr talks about Taylorism and how it changes the way people think. Carr talks about Taylor’s system and how it basically takes out any critical thinking on the individual level and teaches people to rely on the system and just do what you are told. Productivity in the factories soared because of this method, but it made people feel like robots, as they were not doing any real thinking for themselves or using creativity in any way. This method changed how society functioned, going from man before system to the complete opposite: putting the system before man.The internet is similar in the way that it is taking away the thinking process and making use of Taylorism to do it, and thus changing the way we think. The internet puts efficiency over knowledge, putting the system over people.
Page 7 Paragraphs 2-3: I mostly agree with what Carr has to say in these paragraphs, as he adds in the opinions of his critics and flat out says that maybe he is overthinking this whole “crisis”. I think that maybe he is blowing it out of proportion in the way that it is a problem, but not a crisis, and he uses Socrates fearing reading/writing would destroy our ability to learn as an example. Carr says that Socrates couldn’t foresee the future and how reading and writing would benefit us, so maybe he is just the same way about digital technology. He says that he sees it as a problem now, but that maybe humanity will adapt to it and benefit from it as we have with reading and writing. So yes, maybe it is a problem now, but maybe Carr is just a doomsayer.
14 thoughts on “JOURNAL # 10”
In Is Google Making Us Stupid by Nicholas Carr on page 1 Paragraph 5 Carr states that the Network seems to be chipping away from his capacity to concentrate and contemplate. I agree with this statement because it resonates with me because I have similar struggles with focus and the internet’s barrage of information makes it hard to have sustained attention on one thing. This shows up a lot in school and work because as I look up one thing it takes me down a rabbit hole of random things and then I get distracted by them. The Internet also reshapes how we consume knowledge. It trains us to skim instead of deep diving into complex ideas. I also agree that it can diminish our ability for deep reflection on a topic and just consume short and small bursts of information. On Page 3 Paragraph 6 Carr goes on and states that the net absorbs a medium, and that medium is recreated in the net Image. I see this statement as complicated because on one hand the internet revolutionized accessibility to knowledge. This allows the media to reach more of a diverse audience and it also fosters innovation. However the down side is the oversimplification of complex content. Online content often prioritizes speed and quick consumption, which can reduce the depth of the information. While the internet makes knowledge more accessible to everyone. This shift can lead to superficial engagement with ideas. Topics that are complex tend to be simplified for easier and faster reading. On Page 5 Paragraph 4 Carr states that we rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the work and it’s our own intelligence that flattens into artificial Intelligence. While I understand where Carr is coming from about reliance on technology, I believe the human mind’s adaptability should not be underestimated. When technology is used thoughtfully, technology can boost cognitive abilities rather than diminish them. For instance, Ai tools can augment our memory and analytical capabilities, which leaves more room for creativity and strategic thinking. While there can be overdependence I believe this passage overstates the harm, and is overlooking the potential of technology to complement rather than replace human intelligence
Jaidin Fuentes
1. (Pg. 1 Paragraph 2-Pg. 2 Paragraph 1) Carr seems to be implying that we are losing our attention spans as we proceed to use the internet more often. He states he struggles to read a long article and instead skims through it and moves on quickly to find something else to read. I agree with this take. I used to be very focused in school and academics when it came to things like work and reading. But after getting access to the internet primarily through a phone that I can take out any second I want, I find myself being quickly disinterested with whatever I was learning and flocking to my device. This became very apparent when I was finally allowed to download social media applications. I quickly became addicted to the short forms of content they offered and found myself scrolling endlessly for hours. I would work on homework for thirty minutes and stop to take a break on my phone and instead spend forty-five minutes scrolling. However, since I’ve came to college, I’ve rarely been on it and have seen an improvement on my focusing abilities.
2. (Pg 4 Paragraph 4) I learned an interesting observation when it came to integrating technology into our lives. I never thought about how much of an effect the clock has had on our way of thinking and going about our day. And with that lack of thought, I failed to think about how life before the clock may have been. How did people track their time and everyday assignments? This seems like a beneficial technological advancement. The question is: Is the internet going to reform the way we live our everyday lives? The answer is it is already reforming our worlds drastically. Everyone immediately opens their phones when they need information and are greeted with it almost instantly. We go to the internet to stay connected with each other, to find information, and to find entertainment. It is so involved with our lives that we have breakdowns when we lose access to it for more than a day. So what I really want to know is how much further of an impact is it going to make and what is it going to be?
3. (Pg 7 Paragraphs 2-3) In these paragraphs, Carr speaks about philosophers and other important people who have attacked innovation due to the effects they may have. Socrates didn’t approve of writing because he believed the human brain capacity would become inefficient and that we wouldn’t be able to store as much information as before. However, he didn’t see the hugely positive impact that writing has had on the world. We use writing so often now in one form or the other that it’s impossible to stop. We need it to keep society going. Humanist Hieronimo Squariafico criticized the printing press because he believed it would lead to “intellectual laziness” and “men ‘less studious’”. He didn’t think about the long term impact of the printing press and how it would lead to millions of books being published and sent to readers all over the world. He also failed to recognize how big of an impact it had on sharing and learning information. But both men were not completely wrong either. Our brain capacities aren’t the best and we can struggle to retain information. And people have become less studious and involved in learning topics in person if they can just read about it and gain knowledge on a topic. So I think that internet does and will continue to have an overall beneficial impact on society, the main concern is how to limit the amount of negative impacts it may have.
In Is Google Making Us Stupid? by Nicholas Carr, he talks about if the use of the internet is ruining peoples abilities to think, read, learn in a normal way. They way they used to. On page one, paragraph two he talks about how he can feel his mind going. Like as if being online is messing with the way his brain works. He says he can feel it the most while he is reading because it used to be easy for him to read for long periods of time or long articles. But now he gets distracted after two to three pages of something. I can relate to that because even while reading this essay, I was reading it but my brain was not listening to what I was reading. My brain was somewhere else, probably thinking about what could be on my phone, instead of focussing on the essay in front of me.
I also agree with Carr when he writes on page two paragraph two that it is like the internet “is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation.” He says his mind is being rewired in a sense to gain information the way the internet provides it. I, too, can see that in myself. It can be hard to concentrate sometimes because things feel like they move too slowly for my brain now. I feel like the internet has caused people to have shortened attention spans since it can move from one thing to the next so quickly. People are used to short blurbs of reading, so when it comes time to read lengthy articles, books, essays, etc. it could feel like a chore to some. Being online has changed the way I think, and changed the way everyone else thinks, along with the ability to focus on things for long periods of time.
On page six in paragraph four, Carr quotes an example from Sergey Brin and Larry Page. They are the people who founded Google; in an interview, they said that we’d “be better off” with “all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smater than” yours. I find their mindsets really unsettling. Wouldn’t that basically make everyone all the same, or not have the ability to learn things on their own anymore, in their own way? It would definitely make everyone seem more robotic than human. Carr and I agree; he, too, believes it to be unsettling to think about if our brains were to be essentially replaced with artificial intelligence. In paragraph six on the same page he says it suggests”the human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.” That doesn’t sit right with me. Our brains are our own being and we don’t need to make them more artificial to “be better off.”
Journal #10: Carr journal
In response to Nicholas Carr’s essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid? I am identifying three passages I feel are centrally important to his argument and as to whether or not I agree or disagree.
Page one paragraph two, Carr explains “I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading.” With the use of technology, it’s changing the way we do everything in a way. It’s rewiring our brains, finding new ways to read, write, and think. We look for instant over long-term, we would rather skim a reading if it’s too long and like to read things in a swift manner. That’s because the more clicks on links and other websites the more money and insight a company gains. They have learned how to adjust our feeds to what we want to see to keep us digitally connected and interested, leading people to doom scroll. Our concentration has shortened, and real reading is becoming challenging. We look for the hit of dopamine we get from scrolling on the internet, getting all different kinds of information thrown at us. In physical books we have to keep reading to find out the plot or the point of the book, whereas social media will get us straight to the point, which is what we look for in today’s society.
On page three paragraph two it explains that we are reading but “it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking.” I agree as we are evolving to how the internet works. Remember our brain only remembers to do things if we practice them, and since “we may well be reading more today than we did in the 70s and 80s”, we are reading more but we are reading off the internet. Where we are given the basic facts and we go searching for more information we can consume quickly. Putting our “efficiency and immediacy” above all else.” This is putting our skills to connect and understanding of context at risk. As, “our ability to interpret text, to make rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.” I agree with this, as I struggle to hold my attention towards long articles or essays. My brain has evolved to the ways of technology. Tik Tok is a good example of fast-paced internet, each video is no longer than a couple minutes. It brings new ideas and information to me every other minute, keeping me interested. But this causes disengagement and affects my brain’s ability to read off of the internet.
On page five paragraph two, it also ties into the past two paragraphs, and I agree with Carr’s and others points here as well. Old media is slowly fading out as new media is taking over, “old media have little choice but to play by new-media rules. If the company didn’t follow new-media rules it would be seen as outdated and lengthy so people would be less likely to read or be interested. Our newspapers now are full of “easy-to-browse info-snippets.” This keeps the reader’s attention as they have lots to look at and less to read. Perfect, right! Well, it seems it, but we are just filling ourselves with useless knowledge most of the time I feel it’s consumerism in reading. We take in lots of information, but we aren’t getting anything meaningful out of it or even anything we can connect to.
“We can expect as well that the circuits woven by our use of the Net will be different from those woven by reading of books and other printed works.” This was on page three, at the end of paragraph 4. I think this is a compelling point. I agree that the internet has changed how people approach research and the general search for information. Having the internet at the tips of our fingers makes many things a lot easier, but it also can allow us to not go on deep-dives into information like we used to. I am not sure I agree with his idea that the internet is literally changing our brains. In one way, yes, because our brains are always changing with adaptation and evolution, and adapting to the internet is just one example. However, I don’t think the changes will be fundamental. As he mentions later, this is just another advancement humans have made, and will grow used to it. Although, I can’t deny the possibility that the internet has had some effects on people’s attention spans. I, personally, really hate reading the entirety of things I am not interested in, but I suppose that is alo different from what Nicholas Carr is talking about-he is talking about losing patience even with literature he enjoys.
“Still, their easy assumption that we’d all “be better off” if our brains were supplemented, or even replaced, by an artificial intelligence is unsettling. It suggests the belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized.” This is on page 6, paragraph 6. First of all, I don’t like how Carr is using the most extreme of cases in this article. He is mentioning, I’m sure, one of the few people that think physically messing with the brain to make it “smarter” is a good, viable idea. I’m 100% sure there are people like that, but it’s not the vast majority of people. I don’t agree with a lot of this article, but I also don’t agree with this ideation. Also, is intelligence not sometimes the result of hard work? And can that hard work not be achieved in discrete steps like studying in a specific way for a test? For some people, this process can be very mechanical. There are ways to make the process more efficient for the person, which in turn helps them retain more information. I don’t think comparison to machinery in these cases is all that uncalled for, nor is it very bad.
“In the quiet places opened up by the sustained, undistracted reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas. Deep reading, Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking.” This is on page 7, paragraph 4. This is something I have to agree with. I know people who love to annotate their reading, even if it’s just a romance book, because it allows them to think more deeply about it, and come back to it in the future. I, personally, do not, but I also don’t think this is related to my access to the internet. I like to read, but I don’t like to analyze what I’m reading. Since we do so much close reading in school, I also have to agree that it aids learning; if it didn’t, why would so many classes make close reading part of the curriculum? But, why isn’t this possible with the internet? People who enjoy reading but can’t access books might find the internet a great resource for that type of reading. A lot of my reading is online for class, but I still read it just as closely as I do otherwise.
“Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages.”pg 1 paragraph 2. I Agree with this in two ways. The first way is because since I have had my concussions its much harder to read cause of my eyes and my tracking problems since my concussions messed up my eyes so much I can’t read right so I go to eye therapy. and since its so hard for me to read I tend to find my self reading but have no clue what I read because as I am reading the words I am thinking about something else. and another reason why I agree is because he is right that we are just use to typing something into google and we see the answer right away so when we have to search for the answer if we are reading so our brain isnisntt use to it so we just wanna give up right away.
“We have to tech our minds how to translate the symbolic characters we see into the language we understand”pg 3 paragraph 3. I agree with this but this also opened up my mind so much cause I never thought about this before about reading. everyone thinks its such an easy concept and people judge so hard if you mess up reading after 5th grade. but its still very hard to translate the symbols even after learning and we should not judge on that.
“the friend wrote in a letter noting that, in his own work, his “thoughts in music and manage often depends on the Quilty of pen and paper” pg 3 paragraph 6.I so agree with this because I do feel like your thoughts change on the computer because you think so much faster when your typing because you can put it down so much faster so you don’t have so much time to process it.
Paragraph 3 page 2, I agree with this paragraph. In this paragraph, Carr is explaining how he along with his friends are experiencing troubles with staying focused on reading long pieces of writing. Along with that, he believes the way he reads has changed. I agree with this, I think that Google is allowing us to just find a summary of whatever we are supposed to read and skim that instead. When having to read a long piece, we become distracted, just wanting to get to the point or end. Looking over it quickly and finding the main points of the piece, instead of focusing long enough to read it all.
Paragraphs 4 and 5 page 4, I agree with this paragraph because I think we are just always on a schedule based on someone who decided we needed to all be on the same timeframe. I agree that we let time dictate what we do and when we do them instead of allowing our bodies to tell us when we need to sleep, wake, or eat. As Carr puts it, we allow the clock to decide “when we to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise” and “we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock”. Which I believe is exactly accurate.
Paragraph 4 page 6, I’m afraid I have to disagree and do not think we would be better off with “the ultimate search engine”. If we had this AI search engine, we would always be able to just look something up. We would not have to keep any knowledge in our heads or remember things if we could just always look up the answer. Having a search engine “as smart as people-or smarter” as the founders of Google state, would allow people to stop having to think about anything or do any problem-solving on their own.
On page 2 paragraph 2, Nicholas Carr explains how the internet chips away at his capacity for concentration and contemplation. I agree with this because I see this in myself. I have very little capacity for concentration. When I read an article I get bored and distracted after the first few paragraphs. Even when I’m doing my homework I can’t focus after a certain period of time and I need a break. Then I usually spend that break on my phone. Even if I am able to focus on something as soon as I hear a notification on my phone, my focus is broken.
On page 3 paragraph 2, Nicholas Carr talks about Maryanne Wolf’s view on the internet’s effects on reading. She says that the way we skim over texts may be weakening our capacity for deep reading. We aren’t able to interpret text and make deep mental connections. I agree because when I read something I have a hard time focusing enough to truly understand what I’m reading. Therefore there’s no way I can read deeply and be fully engaged in the text. I would have to read it multiple times because I wouldn’t be able to focus fully the first time I read it.
On page 5 paragraph 1, Nicholas Carr mentions how the internet is filled with hyperlinks, ads, etc. that distract us so we can’t stay focused. I agree because I see this on my phone all the time. On social media there’s always ads and links to bring you to another site. On the internet there are always ads and links that bring you down a rabbit hole. And even games have ads that pop up every other minute. Sometimes they distract me to the point that I forgot what I was originally doing on my phone.
Page 1 paragraph 2 of Nicholas Carr’s essay “Is google Making us Stupid” he states that he isn’t thinking in the same way he used to and its felt most strongly when he’s reading. I agree with this line to a certain extent. I think that it’s true our thinking patterns can change due to influences from the internet. He claims that reading in general, which used to come easy to him, is difficult now since the use of more internet, causing him to drift away easier. I feel that too, but it’s more significant when reading things for classes, finding it difficult to fully immerse myself and my mind wandering. I often skim through readings instead of thinking deeply about them. When it comes to reading for my own pleasure though, which I frequently do, I can still enjoy it and not feel distracted or disconnected at all, I think it fully has to do with the amount of interest you previously had in what you were trying to read.
On page 2 paragraph 3, Carr states that the internet is chipping away at our capacity to concentrate and contemplate. I also only partially agree with this statement. I do feel like my ability to concentrate has become worse, and my attention span has shortened. The constant stimulation the internet provides makes me feel more drawn to it, making it difficult for me to sit down to try and focus on something and not want to go pick up my phone instead. But I think the internet also provides us with tools that can help us to find other resources to help us. If you can’t understand something that is written out the internet may have another version of that content available. Something like a YouTube video that can visually show something while also explaining it, or more in-depth articles to gain more information.
On page 5 paragraph 1 of “Is Google Making Us Stupid “Carr talks about the internet influencing a thinking style that encourages distractions and less engagement. It often involves shoving multiple different topics of information at you at once with different ads and links making you want to open more things. I agree that this information being thrown at us in this way leads to half understood topics and incomplete knowledge. I don’t feel immersed in things when they’re full of other distractions, if I have the ability to go to other tabs I’m going to fall for the distraction and lose track of what I was originally doing. While having access to all this information online can be a useful thing, it can also be hard to understand it When it is in the same space as other things I’d rather do like scroll through my Instagram or watch YouTube, it causes me to multitask, preventing me from fully absorbing anything of what I was originally trying to do.
Page 1 Paragraph 2
In this paragraph when Carr talks about what has been changing to the mind I find is important. Explaining how feeling like something has been changing and “tinkering with my brain” is a very strong thing to say. I completely agree with that statement because I also feel that way about it. When he talks about how his mind gets lost or caught up is another way to explain what the effects of this has on someone. Talking about this is so essential to what Carr wants to explain in this story of how per the title that google is making us stupid.
Page 2 paragraph 3
In this paragraph Carr explains the problems with reading to friends. When he talks about how it is hard to read to friends because of the use of the web I do not totally agree. Yes I agree the web has changed the way some people read and may cause problems to that. I feel that even though it may be tough you can still manage to read. This is vital to the whole idea Carr is trying to talk about because this is the main problem. The web is causing us to not be able to read the correct way anymore, it is causing many problems. I can feel some people in my life starting to have these problems too, even I experience these problems myself. He uses a quote from Scott Karp and I feel the quote is a perfect analogy of explaining how people do all their reading on the web and not in a normal way
Page 3 paragraph 2
In this paragraph Carr talks mainly about a saying from this woman named Maryanne Wolf. She says “we are not only what we read, we are how we read”. This quote I feel explains the whole thing Carr is trying to accomplish. When people read online we tend to just read the info and never really interpret it or take it to another level. I agree with Carr and I even agree with Wolf and what she says. The web has changed the way we read and how we even do the reading. Carr also talks about text messaging and how we do way more reading on that on our phones than anything else and I couldn’t agree more. Carr is trying to get across that the way we are reading has changed and is not for the better but for the worse. He wants people to know what the web has been doing to us.
Page 1 paragraph 2
In the second paragraph of Nicholas Carr’s essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” he expresses that his way of thinking has changed, particularly regarding reading. I resonate with this idea to some extent. Our thinking patterns can indeed be influenced by our internet habits. Carr notes that reading, which once came easily to him, has become more challenging due to frequent internet use, leading to greater distraction. I experience this, especially with class readings, where I often find it hard to engage fully and my mind tends to wander. I tend to skim rather than dive deeply into the material. However, when it comes to reading for pleasure, something I do regularly, I still find joy in it without feeling distracted. I believe this enjoyment largely depends on the level of interest I have in what I’m reading.
Page 7 Paragraph 4
In the quiet moments fostered by focused, uninterrupted reading, whether of a book or during any form of contemplation, we create our connections, draw personal conclusions, and develop our ideas. Maryanne Wolf posits that deep reading is essentially the same as deep thinking, and I wholeheartedly agree. I know people who love to annotate even a simple romance novel; this practice helps them engage more profoundly with the text and revisit their thoughts later. While I don’t annotate, I don’t believe my preference stems from my access to the internet. I enjoy reading but prefer not to analyze it too deeply. In school, we’ve done a lot of close reading, and I can see how it enhances learning; if it didn’t, why would so many classes incorporate it into their curriculum? However, this raises a question: why isn’t deep reading as easily achieved online? For those who enjoy reading but lack access to physical books, the internet can be a valuable resource. Much of my reading for class happens online, and I approach it with the same level of engagement as I do with traditional texts.
On page 2 paragraph 2 Carr, explains “for me and for many others the net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind, The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich source of information are many, and they’ve been widely described and duly applauded.” I agree with what carr explains here, a good majority of the information that I personally take in each day is from something based on the Net. We see such an incredible amount of information from online videos, through text messages, and through social media posts, or even a simple google search. My mind has become accustomed to taking in this form of information in short bursts as opposed to deeply immersing myself in educational research or a good novel. The advantages of having such an incredible source of knowledge at your fingertips at all times is more than we can even fathom, it has driven the huaman to extreme levels of efficiency and productivity and aided in so many ways. THrough the use of search engines like Google we are abl;e to know just about anything we need to or want to know, it is likely the most useful tool we have introduced to the human race in terms of survival and advancement.
On page 3 paragraph 3, Carr quotes Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts university, she says “when we read online…we tend to become mere decoders of information. Our ability to interpret text, to make mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged” I agree with this sentiment. When we read an article on our personal laptops or on our phones, even while reading this article with my phone in the vicinity it poses a distraction, a news alert, an email, an instagram notification whatever it may be poses a small distraction that disrupts our ability to continue making those connections even if just for a second. For a lot of us it becomes hard to be able to read a long article without feeling fidgety or being distracted by our surroundings, it feels as though our attention span has continued to decrease. It only makes sense as we gather small bits of information lookigg by for the instant gratification that Google and other search can provide. It does not take effort to plug in a question and get instant feedback that is tailored to exactly what you need. Even the media that we entertain ourselves with have become short clips in the form of instagram reels or Tik Tok videos that often last no more than 30 seconds. We are becoming hardwired to have a shorter attention span due to the frequent use of the internet.
Finally, on page 5 paragraph 3 Carr states that “ never has a communication system played so many roles in our lives – or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts – as the internet does today. Yet, for all that’s been written about the net, there’s been little consideration for how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us.” I agree with this too, our cellphones and other devices practically rule our lives. They play crucial roles in decision making, whether as a support or as something negative they provide us the means to be able to support many of our daily activities from travel, to finance, to information gathering, to eating, and even our ability to sleep. For such a small thing that plays such a crucial role it is surprising to me that there has not been more consideration as to how this heavy usage has truly impacted us. We think about our phones constantly. For me and many others when we wake up, the first thing we look at is our phones whether it is for the time or to check the weather or our social media platforms. This obsession that has become such a normal part of our lives cannot be described as anything but an addiction. Is this technology really making us stupid as we increasingly become more reliant upon it?
Page 2, Paragraph 2
I agree with this passage. Carr states that technology is both a blessing and a curse. He explains that technology brings a convenient and widespread array of information, but there is a cost. It alters our way of thinking and taking in information. He even said it is “…chipping away at my capacity for concentration and contemplation.” I can relate to this. I can’t remember that I read through an entire article or research paper unless I was forced to. It’s like my attention span has decreased or something. I used to read lots of books for fun up until high school. After that, I just read whatever was mandatory for a class. The only time I remember reading whole passages without being forced was for my physics class. I did it to study, but it was also like I was pouring pure information into my brain. I didn’t skim through it because everything on the page was relevant and important.
Page 3, Paragraphs 2-3
My response is complicated for this passage. Carr starts by saying that we may be reading more now than we did in the 70s-80s. I disagree with this statement. Although we may be seeing more words on our screens, the actual reading and absorption of writing is lacking. It’s as if the more resources of information we are given, the less motivation we have to use them properly. I guess we are just taking it all for granted nowadays. I am definitely guilty of this, too. Carr also states that “circuits woven by our use of the Net will be different from those woven by our reading of books and other printed works.” I agree with this. The way our brains view information will highly depend on its source. For example, one person who mainly uses Google as a source of information will have a different way of memorizing information than someone who uses physical literature.
Page 6, Paragraph 6
I agree with this one. Carr says that it is unsettling to hear that Google would prefer if everyone had brains supplemented with artificial intelligence, or if we were replaced entirely with them. This is one hundred percent true. We have little control over what happens on the internet already. Having less control over my brain, body, and thoughts is terrifying. Even if Google was technically correct, their idea is very unethical. Also, I think that society is doing pretty well without having bionic body parts. And the fact that Carr compared the brain to “…an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive” is truly the most unsettling thing in his essay. The world has already been progressing at a fast pace, so why would we consider something so outlandish? This whole thing reminds me of a microchip experiment I heard about a while back. I just thought, why would you willingly put a trackable piece of a tech that you do not understand into your body? I think this goes back to the idea of control. Many people, including myself, fear having less control over themselves and their lives.
Page 3 Paragraph 2: I agree with what Carr has written in this paragraph, though this is a portion that uses the words of another person. In this paragraph, he is using the words of Maryanne Wolf who is a developmental psychologist at Tufts University to support his claims. She says that the internet puts efficiency and immediacy above everything else and because of this we are lacking in our ability to interpret text, make rich mental connections, and read without distraction. Connecting this to my own life and what I have seen in others, I can say the majority of people fall within this generalization. We look at words and read them, but we do not always strive to find a deeper meaning and make strong connections to other things or to our lives. The internet is changing the way we function and it appears to be changing the way we process information and think, as well.
Page 5 Paragraphs 5-6: I agree with Carr’s perspective in these paragraphs. In this portion of the essay, Carr talks about Taylorism and how it changes the way people think. Carr talks about Taylor’s system and how it basically takes out any critical thinking on the individual level and teaches people to rely on the system and just do what you are told. Productivity in the factories soared because of this method, but it made people feel like robots, as they were not doing any real thinking for themselves or using creativity in any way. This method changed how society functioned, going from man before system to the complete opposite: putting the system before man.The internet is similar in the way that it is taking away the thinking process and making use of Taylorism to do it, and thus changing the way we think. The internet puts efficiency over knowledge, putting the system over people.
Page 7 Paragraphs 2-3: I mostly agree with what Carr has to say in these paragraphs, as he adds in the opinions of his critics and flat out says that maybe he is overthinking this whole “crisis”. I think that maybe he is blowing it out of proportion in the way that it is a problem, but not a crisis, and he uses Socrates fearing reading/writing would destroy our ability to learn as an example. Carr says that Socrates couldn’t foresee the future and how reading and writing would benefit us, so maybe he is just the same way about digital technology. He says that he sees it as a problem now, but that maybe humanity will adapt to it and benefit from it as we have with reading and writing. So yes, maybe it is a problem now, but maybe Carr is just a doomsayer.