There's Stupidity Somewhere Here, But It's Not Coming From Google...
from the provocative-titles dept
Matt Asay writes about Nick Carr's article in the July issue of The Atlantic, "Is Google making us stupid?" I'm not so sure that you can make such a generalization, but something certainly seems to be messing with Nick Carr's reasoning ability. With such a provocative title, I was expecting a little more evidence with a lot less storytelling and speculation -- but I was seriously disappointed.
There are some valid concerns nested in there, but the tone is attention-seeking and hyperbolic. More importantly, Carr seems to be jumping to the wrong conclusions, as appears to be typical. In the article, Carr writes:
[S]cholars examined computer logs documenting the behavior of visitors to two popular research sites, one operated by the British Library and one by a U.K. educational consortium, that provide access to journal articles, e-books, and other sources of written information. They found that people using the sites exhibited "a form of skimming activity," hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they'd already visited. They typically read no more than two pages of an article or book before they would "bounce" out to another site. Sometimes they'd save a long article, but there's no evidence that they ever went back and actually read it.
I'm sorry, but how is this "chilling" (as Radar Online claims)? Carr doesn't explain why skimming is problematic, aside from worrying that we're becoming "mere decoders of information," like computers. Did paper cause people to become mere transmitters of information? We aren't deprived of our ability to reflect or think deeply by using Google's search engine or by skimming through blog posts.
I don't understand why this is even considered a problem. I skim a ton of stuff online and often make quick judgments as to whether or not its worth my time. There's a lot of crap in the long tail. But there are also a lot of worthwhile things. Skimming is human filtering, it's a necessary and useful part of processing the vast amount of information available online. I'm not going to read everything I find on the web. Most articles I will scan quickly, but there are many other things that I read in detail and at length.
What's wrong with skimming?
And then there's Matt's attack on Twitter:
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?
Come on! It's a medium! What about the famous quote? "I've written you a long letter because I haven't had time to write a short one." (paraphrased - usually attributed to Mark Twain, but it appears it may be Blaise Pascal). It's harder to be concise. Regardless, Twitter is a medium, it's micro-blogging. Just because you make use of a different medium doesn't mean that it controls your thinking or prevents you from using other mediums. Did telegrams make people stupid? I use the Internet to update my Facebook status and to write 2500 word emails to stay in touch with close friends.
Twitter doesn't make people stupid.
Nor does Google or Wikipedia or anything else. People are just stupid irrespective of technology. Myself included. I don't do stupid things because of technology, I do stupid things because sometimes I do stupid things. We may see stupidity manifested in different ways on different mediums, but I have a hard time believing that the medium is to blame.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: nick carr, stupidity, technology
Companies: google, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I couldn't agree more
Well said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its like Guns
In that crappy analogy guns are a medium of death. Could easily have been a knife, stick, or fists.
As you say, the tone is attention-grabbing. Carr just needs some attention. Probably to feed the ads on the page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carr might be right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Carr might be right
As for the article, I was turned off in the first paragraph where he states that he, along with friends (one of whom was a lit major) no longer can read long articles. Well, his article was 4 pages long! If thats not irony...
But I find that notion just plain stupid. I just finished reading a 700 page book a little while back, and was held in rapture almost the entire time. I still enjoy picking up a good book and reading all the way through, and the bigger the book, the bigger the sense of accomplishment. Carr is just getting lazy and falling into the old trap of instant satisfaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Carr might be right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Carr might be right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm....
It can't be that bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eh?
It has the tone of Mike.
I was shocked that it mentioned that you read the Vatican's site in detail though.
Then I checked and it wasn't Mike who wrote this.
I did not know the Vatican had a web page, although I should have assumed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eh?
It has the tone of Mike.
I'll take that as a compliment. :)
I did not know the Vatican had a web page, although I should have assumed.
The Vatican actually has a very comprehensive web page.
There's an entertaining interview I found from Robert Scoble back in the fall with Sister Judith Zoeblein, the nun responsible for the Vatican's website. She's asked questions about Second Life (ha.ha. get it?) and "which operating system God uses." People are shocked to see a nun in I.T., nevermind actually giving a talk at a tech conference (they caught her in the hall during the conference).
Interview with Sister Judith Zoebelein
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eh?
--Glenn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um...
Blaise's response illustrates Asay's point perfectly -- skim the surface without taking the time or making an effort to delve deeply. Asay isn't blaming the medium for making him stupid; he's making the point that the nature of the medium encourages a particular way of ingesting information, and that browsing or skimming short bursts of information that link to other short bursts of information is not the same as a sustained study of a particular work. If Blaise had read carefully (deeply maybe?) for comprehension rather than skimming the article and reacting immediately because someone has taken what he perceived to be a pot-shot against his chosen medium, he might see that Asay actually has a point. Of course, if one has never taken the time to develop the skill of deep reading and thinking, then it is to be expected that one would not know such a skill existed or might be useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um...
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.
My point is that using Twitter doesn't make us speak like Twitter. We may "tweet" (hate that word), but on Twitter. Take the "txt spk" theme at Techdirt for example. Shortened SMS messages don't make kids stupid or impair their ability to write prose, and 140 character message on Twitter don't make its users stupid or unable to read books.
Sure, "the nature of the medium encourages a particular way of ingesting information" but I don't believe it necessarily spreads beyond the medium (or "makes us stupid"). When in Rome, do as the Romans do... When on Twitter, you ingest information in a certain way. Yes, that is very different from the sustained study of a particular work. But how does ingesting information on Twitter impair your ability to study a particular work in depth off-line or on some other medium?
Twitter isn't for in-depth study. That doesn't mean it impairs our ability to study in-depth.
Asay's observation has no real connection to the "makes us stupid" thesis because neither Asay or Carr can explain how skimming on one medium impairs one's ability to study in-depth on another (or on the same, for that matter).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, opening and reading a PDF file online slows down my computer. I end up with much better results by saving a file as a download and reading the document later. I also may not have an immediate need for that file - as a researcher, I often find documents that I don't need at that moment, but which will prove to be useful later on. Did any of these brilliant researchers think about these possibilities before they jumped to stupid conclusions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I know it is human nature to sift through and discard information it is different when you sit and think and work something out without the aid of a calculator and or giant internet library. I also know that it is human nature to usually take the easiest route. Why reinvent something if it has already been done for you?
Necessity Breeds Invention. who knows what they would have come up with if they didn't have exact plans on how to build the tribuchet.
I am an avid reader and sift though great amounts of information. I read blogs, I read news and much of that information I do skim over. But, I also read extensivily from other sources and try to actually expand my understanding and knowledge.
I wouldn't say that the internet makes us stupid.. it makes us lazy.. like many comments before it isn't guns that kill people it is people that kill people. The internet doesn't make us stupid.. it makes us lazy. I wouldn't shoot the mediums such as twitter, google facebook, YouTube etc. I think they are all very helpfull and if used right with some proper thought and inguinuity mankind could solve many of the issues it is facing. Think about what all of the famous inverntors did with what little resources they had.
Think about all of the resources we have today at our fingertips!! Use the information! Piece it together.. skim all you want, research, think! Use the information as a stepping block and not as crutch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Filtering and switching
However, it addresses a much deeper issue. The problem that Carr is addressing is that over time, it seems harder to switch between modes of filtering information.
Being able to skim text to discern whether it is worth reading is a valuable skill - but so is being able to then switch modes of thinking/focus in order to be able to engage in actually reading the text and comprehending it.
There is value in being able to skim and decode - but our ability to analyze, ruminate, debate, create is equally important. A script can skim and decode information, categorize it, put it in nice little piles - but it does not mean that the script understands the meaning of the information it has processed, or can understand it in context.
There is a point at which it is not laziness, but a change in how the brain deals with stimulus. Is it reversible? I don't think we'll know until unplugged / brain deprogramming retreats become common place over the next decade, when more people realize that they are not able to focus or deal with the world in the same way as before.
I don't view it as necessarily good or bad - but I do feel it is the beginning of a fundamental shift in culture. Being able to engage with a book, or a conversation, or a lecture or watch a meteor shower are things that leave us with ideas that can lead us to new concepts, artwork, design, data structures, programming... Click click click culture of endless link following and mindless browsing leaves thoughts fleeting and dashing off, half-finished before we can really grasp what it is that we are thinking - this has been a long time coming, widely available broadband net access has just spread up the process for a lot of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Filtering and switching
He's "haunted," worried that "own intelligence that [may] flatten into artificial intelligence." He calls it "unsettling" that Google is apparently replacing our intelligence with artificial intelligence, when that's not what's happening at all.
I think he has many interesting observations about how we ingest information in various mediums, especially on the Internet, but the article is premised on these observations being somehow "unsettling."
I think they're interesting, but I don't see where the problem is. I don't understand how this "makes us stupid" or is something to be concerned about or "haunted" by. Especially, considering that few people would make similar corollary claims about analog technologies (which Carr does admit on page four, when he tells us we "should be skeptical of [his] skepticism" for that very reason).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great analysis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stating The Obvious
Maybe we aren't 'scholars' like we were before the internet but with all the answers at our fingertips (for better or worse) we don't need to be!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
carr is more right than this article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re Blaise #17
Not really intended as compliment or insult.
Usually from the RSS though I can tell if the article is written by Mike or Tim (or somebody else but I tend to see other's articles less often so it makes them harder to distinguish). I actually thought this was written by Mike until I checked it.
Thank you for pointing out the interview. I shall have to listen to it soon. (it is blocked at my current location)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mediums to blame
To confuse medium with information would seem inexcusable. I can't even argue with Mike's points, which is just... terrible.
--Glenn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abstracts / book liner notes
On the other side of the coin: remember McLuhan, and "the medium is the message". The medium used to express yourself DOES change the way that you think. But that's an issue orthogonal to the process of skimming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enough is good enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GoogleFried
Displacing Editors: How Search Algorithms tell you what’s relevant.
The self-reinforcing nature of relevance. The multi-billion dollar “relevance” business. How companies and individuals “game” Google. Cheating Wikipedia and other attempts to modify history. What happens to information deemed “less relevant” and how this impacts our understanding of history and the world around us.
Confirmation Bias – The Rise of Conspiracy Theories on Steroids
How the traditional gate-keepers of “knowledge “ are being displaced by algorithms. How sophisticated search tools make it too easy to reinforce personal theories.
Super Cyranos and Sherlocks: How Search Tools even Changes our Sex Lives
How googling “pick-up” lines and having the ability to feign broad polymathic abilities countered with the democratization of data which brings sophisticated background research tools to the masses will change both our ability to create a new persona or to escape an old one. How Search will change how we identify ourselves, present ourselves, and forever change our relationships. Also the development of virtual worlds.
Bill
http://blog.workhound.co.uk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"... attention-seeking and hyperbolic ..." YES! Like so many headlines on the covers of newspapers, magazines, and the front pages of web sites: "Wikipedia/the Internet/Google/Motherhood: blessing, or the most evil plot in the world? ... exclusive story inside, read on ...".
These are stories written from hunger -- the author wants to get paid, and there is no editor, and the goal, after all, is to keep the advertisements from bumping into each other -- you have to have something in between or they look too crowded!
Remember, these are vehicles for advertising, and the advertisers are their real audience and target, NOT the reader.
None of these writers wants your MIND, they want your EYEBALLS so they can turn over your WALLET to the advertisers for MONEY.
I imagine that a study of pre-historic or pre-literate societies would reveal the same scanning -- you look out of the cave and scan, you study an animal in the distance, but ignore the familiar or uninteresting nearby because there's no food nearby, you look back in the cave to get a weapon to catch that animal.
"... Scanning ..." is a human survival tactic, keeping us able to pay attention to emergent situations as we look for value, preventing us from getting lost against our own self interest in things that do not benefit us.
More useful would have been a report from those authors if they had gone back to look at the specific content in question, the content that was skimmed, and read it themselves to report on it -- hey, it's crap ... or ... it's not germane to their research ... no wonder the readers skimmed it! Or, as already noted, "Hey, it's hard to read anything online since the computer screen only shows 1/2 a page, and it's slow, so why not print and read on paper because paper's better for that, and use the computer for what it's best for -- searching, sorting, selecting, and skimming! "Good readers know how to skim" would have been an alternative headline if the writers weren't so bent on their own trajectory.
"... linkbait ..." -- great term, exactly what such headline grabbers are after: making the advertisements look properly spaced apart from each other. "Filler". Same here on TechDirt? Maybe. We all have ulterior motive$.
"... over time, it seems harder to switch between modes of filtering inform ..." No, not really. Over time IN ONE PLACE it seems harder to find value, so we tend to leave. Some people watch TV for entertainment and distraction from the other worries of the day. Some people watch TV to catch up on the news. It's not TV, it's how the person uses TV. Same with the Internet. Some people use it for one reason, some for another. The report writers did not audit the users to first see what was their purpose in using the Internet, so their resulting report is bogus, as expected.
"... a large majority of today's people simply don't think ..." What does "today" have to do with it? Someone else's ability to think is not even accessible let alone measurable by another. YOU may think I'm thoughtless, but maybe I'm solving my family's life-long problems in my head and you're waay less interesting to me now? Rephrase that as "other people's thoughts still inaccessible to others". Duh!
I skimmed the rest of everyone's comments, thanks all ... nothing personal, I'm just not as interested here as I am interested in spending time elsewhere. Bye!
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's How You Use IT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]