Actual Study Suggests Googling Activates Your Brain, Rather Than Making You Stupid
from the can-we-get-money-back-from-Nick-Carr? dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That study is stupid
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1+1=3
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Do you remeber being trying to search for something?
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 thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
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 thread ]
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 thread ]
Re: 1+1=3
As the 1337 HAX0RS say, pwnd.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
duplicate link
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
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 thread ]
I think both studies are wrong
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 thread ]
to google eternally
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 thread ]
Re: duplicate link
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
yea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
uhm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OWWWW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WHT YU DOING IM BORED LIKE OWWW
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GET IT
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IM A BOI THO. ALWAYS HOMO !!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: brain is not passive
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
idk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
loserrr.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]