Actual Study Suggests Googling Activates Your Brain, Rather Than Making You Stupid

from the can-we-get-money-back-from-Nick-Carr? dept

Wed, Oct 15th 2008 6:36am — Mike Masnick

Earlier this year, we were among many who debunked Nicholas Carr's somewhat ridiculous assertion that Google somehow made people stupid because it got them used to skimming information rather than sitting down with a big fat book (like the one Carr is trying to sell) and reading through it. Like so many Carr theses, it seems filled with some interesting factoids and connections -- but then jumps to a conclusion that isn't even remotely supported by the rest of the article. Yet, rather than defend or respond to criticisms, Carr has gotten into the habit of only posting the positive reviews of his article and book.

It would be interesting to see, then, how he responded to some actual research that suggests using search engines helps keep the brain active and "exercises" the brain -- which would be rather the opposite of Carr's thesis. Not only that, but the MRI research showed that active internet users tended to have more activity in the region of the brain that controls decision-making and complex reasoning. While it's just one study -- and you can question how widely the results can be applied -- it's at least worth noting that it seems to contradict Carr's basic thesis.

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: brain, intelligence, internet usage

72 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 7:29am

That study is stupid
I know, I googled it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 7:36am

1+1=3
But that doesn't actually disprove his point. Compare it to people who read instead of "googling" and then you might actually have a valid point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 8:29am
  
  Re: 1+1=3
  Not true. Citing the above article "Google somehow made people stupid". That would imply having a negative effect on the brain. The study implies having a positive effect on the brain. What you just said, combined with these two facts, implies that "googling" has a positive effect on the brain, although it may not be as positive as reading.
  As the 1337 HAX0RS say, pwnd.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 7:46am

To be honest, googling something needs more processing power than looking it up in a book. Get a book, check the related chapter, and just start reading until you get what you want.

To google something efficiently you need to come up with a good search string, then filter the results mentally based on reliability and relevance etc etc...

Whether one method ends up making you "smarter" than the other is debatable, but I'd argue that on those grounds, using google requires more skill/thought than reading a book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 7:54am
  
  Re:
  But unfortunately you have to find the book which is a filter. You have to filter the book based on reliability and relevance which is another filter.Look for the correct chapter which is another filter. I mean we could go on with this, but the reality is without evidence prooving one or the other it is a mute point. Just like writing countless blogs about IP. It is all just beating a dead horse as someone else said.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 8:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    moot*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 8:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    Moot. The word is moot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greg, 15 Oct 2008 @ 9:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hmmm.. "prooving" and "mute" point? Someone needs a dictionary to filter themselves.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Woo, 15 Oct 2008 @ 7:47am

interwebs r smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JT, 15 Oct 2008 @ 7:54am

I personally think that it would make you a bit more smart. I somewhat agree with the 1+1=3 comment but I also have to ask how many people sit down and read a book on every subject that pops into their mind?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JT, 15 Oct 2008 @ 8:02am
  
  Re:
  Sorry... Apparently it hasn't made me smart enough to stop me from accidentally tabbing to "submit".
  
  My point being that search engines open up the ability to quickly harvest information. I don't care what form information comes in, you're still learning something. I'm fairly certain a lot of people, like myself, get more engaged when reading up on a subject on the web as opposed to static text in a book. The fact that many times you can hop around to different angles, read opinions, etc.
  
  I don't see how it could ever make someone stupid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 9:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    I agree. The mind seeks input, the internet provides the information. I would argue that the internet allows the mind to form its own questions and seek it's own answers. It is like being on a train of thought who's tracks can turn on a dime at the conductor's will.
    
    A book is only as good as it's author, as is the case for information found on the internet. Hopefully the brain is developed enough to decipher the valuable information from the crap.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Strickland, 15 Oct 2008 @ 7:58am

Do you remeber being trying to search for something?
It sucked. Not because the new algorithms are so much better, but because you had no idea what the key ideas/ key words were.

Understanding that all media have different context for the same words means you need to organize words into contexts and learn words that are used only in specific context.

But then again I never went to college. So maybe I am just google using retard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JB, 15 Oct 2008 @ 8:05am

I find it interesting that my family and friends request that I perform searches on the web since I seem to find the relevant information faster than they can. I have since taught my wife to effectively produce a search string.

I see value in both book-smarts and internet-smarts. If you are trying to find information on bleeding-edge technologies, you are more likely to find the information by browsing the index of a book (which is a simplified search through a chosen source.) If you are trying to find information about common knowledge or opinions; an internet search is warranted.

If current progress is any indication, all current and future publications will have been and will be converted into electronic format. This means that the days of browsing through an ink and paper book will not be necessary as an internet search would point you to the right publisher:author:title:chapter:page:line:word:letter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 8:20am

A primary problem I see with most of the discussions on this topic, is that they do not define the inherent differences they are attempting to show. Reading does not make you more intelligent, it simply allows you to accumulate more information for reference. That being said, how can they prove that the exercise exerted on the brain during the skimming of a printed material is greater than that of someone using a search engine? Generally when using a search engine, a person is doing exactly the same thing as someone browsing a book, with the exception that there is less "automatic" mental function. When skimming a book you are not "thinking" about everything passing in front of your eyes, your brain is scanning it and disregarding that which is not relevant. That's how our brains work to sort large amounts of information in day to day life.

Yes, indexed searching requires less skimming than that offered by a full text mental scan, but consider the fact that indexed searching allows for more rapid information acquisition. That in turn allowing a person to do more actual reading on the subject of interest, and possible stimulating more actual information retention in the brain as well as the stimulation of searching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 8:35am
  
  Re:
  I notice a small problem with what you're saying. Our brains do not "filter out" any information on their own, we in fact tell them to, but as we are telling our brain "that is not relevant, that is not relevant, ...", it is, at the same time, collecting data subconsciously. There is nothing that you perceive, read, hear, etc. that the brain does not store on some level.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's like saying something taken into RAM is "stored". Yes, experiences and information is taken in, but not everything is actually stored. Our brains do in fact automatically filter out the vast majority of sights, sounds, smells, etc, that come into it. If we were constantly "remembering" everything that was happening around us, we would be overloaded with information. For instance, do you believe you have to actively tell your brain to not remember everything that happens on your drive into work? Every sight, smell, sounds, vehicle color, or person? No, your brain looks for threats, processes things that might be of use in some fashion, and lets you sort through that. If you want to remember more specific details, you have to actually work to condition your brain to store them, not the reverse.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - buckminster futt, 15 Oct 2008 @ 12:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: brain is not passive
      Research has established the brain is not passive in regards to sensory inputs. Brain researchers wired electrodes to a cat's skull such that when they rang a bell, the auditory signal registered on the animal's brain and was detectable on their instrumentation. The researchers were surprised to discover that when the cat was intensely focused on stalking prey, ringing the bell did not register on the cat's brain.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
duplicate link, 15 Oct 2008 @ 8:29am

duplicate link
You seem to be linking to the same page with your first and third links. Perhaps you meant to link to this; Internet use 'good for the Brain' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7667610.stm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 15 Oct 2008 @ 9:45am
  
  Re: duplicate link
  Oops. Fixed. Thanks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
myself, 15 Oct 2008 @ 9:14am

I think both studies are wrong
You can not say that searching the web is better than browsing in a book or viceversa. It's maybe a matter of how you look for the information.

Imagine the internet as a dictionary, or better yet, as an enciclopaedia and you are looking for "the history of cars". While searching the web, I think one needs to be more aware of the information because you can read a lot more information given by a search engine: Writing different words related to the history of cars, will give you different search results. Some non-related and non-repeated. And they're all as close as one click.

Do the same search in a book. Is more concise and by far, more limited (but by no means, unaccurated or unuseful).

So, as an exercise, searching the web looks more like a challenge for the brain. But certainly i don't believe it makes you smarter. Just makes more information avaliable, and as we all know, more information is not always for the best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
astontechno, 15 Oct 2008 @ 9:40am

to google eternally
google is a constant reminder how much we've learned

in our lives and how we store it in a place that

google continues to "jog".

never again we will have the anxiety of not remembering

water cooler questions are solved instantaneously ô¿ô
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sarah, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:34am

yea.
YOUR A G !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve Oun, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:36am

yO dOgz....yA a gEEk...u kNo wAt iT iS....sOuTh siDe aLL dAy...iM oUt hErE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:38am
  
  Re:
  im a bitch srry to wirte wat i wrote
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sarah, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: He is not a Geek he is well inteligent in all ways . mayb your smarts will get you some where unnessary. learn how to spell WHAT! theres no such things as DOGZ* it shaoll be corrected as DOGS baby girl
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Franklin Castilo, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:36am

uhm
this is so weird i nevver seem to under stand the storie; mayb you can explain it some more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yliana portuhondo, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:37am

well i was really into your article..yha awsome :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PAM E FR3SH, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:39am

HEY THIS IS COOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lynn, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:41am

FUCK YOU PAM E FRESH! never as fresh as me hush!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PAM E FR3SH, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:42am

STOP HATE N MY G DONT BE MAD CUS YU AINT ME WHT UP ?
OWWWW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lil. Wayne, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:43am

holla at me...New Orleans all day...ya diggz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yunqsavaqee, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:43am

yooo diss shxtsz freshh bee yu knoo ayoo pam wuss poppin bee. imma bouta diss yah shxt ooowww
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PAM E FR3SH, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:44am

WHT UP MY NIGG ASTAR N
WHT YU DOING IM BORED LIKE OWWW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lynn., 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:44am

Nah but forreal meet me at crown.!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shyquon, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:44am

pam ii lovee you babyy ii wanna qett married ii didnt know you be on this website take down my screen name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LYNN., 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:47am

PAM be workin my corner tho nah?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DENZY, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:47am

PAM your ass iss qrass bee DONT DISS MY SHXT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MELSY BABY, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:48am

HEY BAY HONEY I MISS YU PUMKIN PIE
ILL ALWAYS LOVE YU NO MATTER WHT BAY I SWEAR AARON WE WENT THRU MADD SUFF I NO I BOP YA CUSZIN BUT YU TOOK ME BACK & KISS ME LIKE IT WAS THE 1ST ILOVE YU ALWAYSZ & 4EVER BAYY 4REAL
AARON & MELSY TIL WE DIE
ALL I NEED IN THIS LIFE OF SIN IS ME & AARON _XOXO
O2:23: 2000 AWW LOVE AT 1ST SIGHT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BEE., 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:48am

IM CHILLEN BEE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:49am

letz talk about sex baby, letz talkm about u nd meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!! by Cindy O.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PAM E FR3SH, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:49am

DAMN YU & MELSY GO OUT ?
GET IT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PAM E FRESH, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:50am

letz talk about sex baby, letz talkm about u nd meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!! by Cindy O.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deven, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:50am

If anyone can bop me off for one nite; holler at my myspace yo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PAM E FR3SH, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:50am

I LOVE MY BABY SHY-QUON IMA GUNNA GOO BUNK CLASS WTH HIM NEXT AHT THEE NERSES GETTIN A EYE CHECK TOGETHER & HESZ APPLYING FA SUM BRACESZ & NEW GEAR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AARON THE DICK SUCKER, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:53am

AYO DEVEN BOI IM WILLING TO BOP FOR THE NIGHT IS IT ALRIGHT ??
IM A BOI THO. ALWAYS HOMO !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Max B, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:53am

yeah its ya boy Max B. im out here. east side all day. u kno where i b at harlem east side wit ma nigga Freaky Zeakey...feelin wavy right now....oooooooooooowwwwwwwwww!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PAM E FR3SH, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:54am

DEVON II GOT A DOO DOO BUTT BHUT IM DOWN FA THEE TRIZZY & DOO A THIING WTH MY TOUNGE YU KNOW HOW II GET DOWN HITT MEE UPP ON AIIM NOW & ILL GIIVE YU A GOOD TIIME ILL SUCK YOUR HOT SPICEY BONER NOW CALL MEE!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PAMELA, 15 Oct 2008 @ 10:56am

THIS IS THE REAL PAMELA MTR.GAY IM SHOCKED THAT PPL WOULD RITE SUCH BAD THINGS
I BELEAVE IT WAS AARON WHO WROTE ALL THIS
& CAN YU PLEASE TELL HIM TO STOP FARTTING CUS ITS STARTING TO SMELL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2008 @ 11:05am

What is going on with this thread? Did Techdirt get posted to MySpace or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Natalie, 16 Oct 2008 @ 10:14am

I like Rolando a lot like ill marry him and like to have rolanditos wit him...he could do me harD!!!oh yess
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sexy nayadet, 16 Oct 2008 @ 10:22am

idk
hello poeple .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tabasco, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:07am

ayoo Jimby
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- notaskank, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:14am
  
  Re:
  hi Tabasc-hoe.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tabasco, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    your the skank. you dirty Trollop. go makee baybees with okihc
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
B Fresh, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:17am

uzs areeee gayyyy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B Fresh, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:19am

You sztinkyy punk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- notaskank, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:22am
  
  Re:
  "B fresh"?
  
  loserrr.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
My names manny, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:21am

I love bannanas (choclate bannanas)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tabasco, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:21am

whatev eoh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Im NOT Manny, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:22am

CRANBERRRYYYY JUICEEEEEEEEEEEEE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tabasco, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:22am

ayoo Manny do you like my bananas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
notaskank, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:23am

i bet her bananas are bruised...ewwwwy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I might be Manny hmmmm...., 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:23am

SzE SzELLS SzESHELSS BY THA SzEE SzTORE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tabasco, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:24am

well notaskank. We all know who bruised your bananas. OKIHC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think im manny, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:25am

I want your sloppy meat in my mouth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- notaskank, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:25am
  
  Re:
  ihateyou.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am Manny, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:26am

Who wants to fuck me in the butt maybe you Skank or the tabasco girl hehehehe m
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
notaskank, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:28am

ill pass. nasty asses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
notaskank, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:28am

ill pass. nasty asses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
POKeMON Trainer (im not Manny i tiold you already), 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:28am

PIKACHUUUUU (shcokey shockey shock)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trollop B0y, 16 Oct 2008 @ 11:29am

ay who the hell is manny, y u niggas talking bout him n y does he wanna take sumthing up his butt??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]