In Nicholas Carr’s well known article titled “Is Google Making us Stupid?,” he argues that the increased use of reading and learning on the internet is affecting the ways that we think and use our brains. A prominent point that Carr makes in terms of internet reading and learning is how quick and accessible information is to us, and consequently, how quickly it can leave our minds. When we have a question, instead of learning the “traditional” way through books and problem solving, we often just “Google it,” and boom, there is your answer. Often times the information I we look up so quickly, we forget five minutes later.
I found it very interesting the way that Carr introduces his topic. It is almost like he draws the reader in with a counterargument, then goes into his main argument. In one of the first few paragraphs he says “The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many, and they’ve been widely described and duly applauded” (Carr). When I first read this, I thought that Carr would be arguing for the development of the internet and the all powerful Google. After further reading, I realized that this is not the case. He highlights the lack of focus that he and his friends alike have recently had while reading long texts such as books and other forms of extended text. He continues to relate this to the short pieces of information the internet feeds us, and we ultimately train our bodies to mainly learn in this way. Though “we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s,” (through texting, tweeting, Googling) it is happening in a different way, a way that our brains cannot handle in the long run (Carr).
To further extend and strengthen Carr’s argument, we read a strangely organized essay/memoir called “Luminous Airplanes,” by Paul La Farge. The overall point of the story was just the story of his life, but it was organized in such a way that mirrors many internet articles such as wikipedia. There were lines of text and within those lines were hyperlinks to other articles, further describing the text prior to clicking. This continued until there was a page of text with no more hyperlinks, then you would go back to the very beginning, and read and click and click again. Sounds confusing right? Well, it was. Reading this way showed me how difficult it was to process whatever I was reading without getting distracted or losing sight of the storyline at hand. With all of the hyperlinks and interruptions in my thought, it was extremely hard to figure out exactly what was going on. This relates to Carr’s argument because many people, when reading online, read in this hyperlinked, confusing fashion, and in the end, there is not much retained. I would guess that some people enjoy reading this way, or would be able to pull something out of it, but in the grand scheme of things, many people are going to have problems reading and learning this way.
Chris's Blog 