thesis statement for is google making us stupid

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

What the Internet is doing to our brains

“Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave?” So the supercomputer HAL pleads with the implacable astronaut Dave Bowman in a famous and weirdly poignant scene toward the end of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey . Bowman, having nearly been sent to a deep-space death by the malfunctioning machine, is calmly, coldly disconnecting the memory circuits that control its artificial “ brain. “Dave, my mind is going,” HAL says, forlornly. “I can feel it. I can feel it.”

I can feel it, too. Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.

I think I know what’s going on. For more than a decade now, I’ve been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing and sometimes adding to the great databases of the Internet. The Web has been a godsend to me as a writer. Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after. Even when I’m not working, I’m as likely as not to be foraging in the Web’s info-thickets—reading and writing e-mails, scanning headlines and blog posts, watching videos and listening to podcasts, or just tripping from link to link to link. (Unlike footnotes, to which they’re sometimes likened, hyperlinks don’t merely point to related works; they propel you toward them.)

For me, as for 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 store of information are many, and they’ve been widely described and duly applauded. “The perfect recall of silicon memory,” Wired ’s Clive Thompson has written , “can be an enormous boon to thinking.” But that boon comes at a price. As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.

I’m not the only one. When I mention my troubles with reading to friends and acquaintances—literary types, most of them—many say they’re having similar experiences. The more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing. Some of the bloggers I follow have also begun mentioning the phenomenon. Scott Karp, who writes a blog about online media , recently confessed that he has stopped reading books altogether. “I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader,” he wrote. “What happened?” He speculates on the answer: “What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because the way I read has changed, i.e. I’m just seeking convenience, but because the way I THINK has changed?”

Bruce Friedman, who blogs regularly about the use of computers in medicine , also has described how the Internet has altered his mental habits. “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year. A pathologist who has long been on the faculty of the University of Michigan Medical School, Friedman elaborated on his comment in a telephone conversation with me. His thinking, he said, has taken on a “staccato” quality, reflecting the way he quickly scans short passages of text from many sources online. “I can’t read War and Peace anymore,” he admitted. “I’ve lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.”

Anecdotes alone don’t prove much. And we still await the long-term neurological and psychological experiments that will provide a definitive picture of how Internet use affects cognition. But a recently published study of online research habits, conducted by scholars from University College London, suggests that we may well be in the midst of a sea change in the way we read and think. As part of the five-year research program, the scholars 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 one or 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. The authors of the study report:

It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense; indeed there are signs that new forms of “reading” are emerging as users “power browse” horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.

Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps even a new sense of the self. “We are not only what we read,” says Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University and the author of Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain . “We are how we read.” Wolf worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace. When we read online, she says, we tend to become “mere decoders of information.” Our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.

Reading, explains Wolf, is not an instinctive skill for human beings. It’s not etched into our genes the way speech is. We have to teach our minds how to translate the symbolic characters we see into the language we understand. And the media or other technologies we use in learning and practicing the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains. Experiments demonstrate that readers of ideograms, such as the Chinese, develop a mental circuitry for reading that is very different from the circuitry found in those of us whose written language employs an alphabet. The variations extend across many regions of the brain, including those that govern such essential cognitive functions as memory and the interpretation of visual and auditory stimuli. We can expect as well that the circuits woven by our use of the Net will be different from those woven by our reading of books and other printed works.

Sometime in 1882, Friedrich Nietzsche bought a typewriter—a Malling-Hansen Writing Ball, to be precise. His vision was failing, and keeping his eyes focused on a page had become exhausting and painful, often bringing on crushing headaches. He had been forced to curtail his writing, and he feared that he would soon have to give it up. The typewriter rescued him, at least for a time. Once he had mastered touch-typing, he was able to write with his eyes closed, using only the tips of his fingers. Words could once again flow from his mind to the page.

But the machine had a subtler effect on his work. One of Nietzsche’s friends, a composer, noticed a change in the style of his writing. His already terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic. “Perhaps you will through this instrument even take to a new idiom,” the friend wrote in a letter, noting that, in his own work, his “‘thoughts’ in music and language often depend on the quality of pen and paper.”

Recommended Reading

Living with a computer.

How to Trick People Into Saving Money

The Dark Psychology of Social Networks

“You are right,” Nietzsche replied, “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.” Under the sway of the machine, writes the German media scholar Friedrich A. Kittler , Nietzsche’s prose “changed from arguments to aphorisms, from thoughts to puns, from rhetoric to telegram style.”

The human brain is almost infinitely malleable. People used to think that our mental meshwork, the dense connections formed among the 100 billion or so neurons inside our skulls, was largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. But brain researchers have discovered that that’s not the case. James Olds, a professor of neuroscience who directs the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University, says that even the adult mind “is very plastic.” Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. “The brain,” according to Olds, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”

As we use what the sociologist Daniel Bell has called our “intellectual technologies”—the tools that extend our mental rather than our physical capacities—we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of those technologies. The mechanical clock, which came into common use in the 14th century, provides a compelling example. In Technics and Civilization , the historian and cultural critic Lewis Mumford  described how the clock “disassociated time from human events and helped create the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences.” The “abstract framework of divided time” became “the point of reference for both action and thought.”

The clock’s methodical ticking helped bring into being the scientific mind and the scientific man. But it also took something away. As the late MIT computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum  observed in his 1976 book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation , the conception of the world that emerged from the widespread use of timekeeping instruments “remains an impoverished version of the older one, for it rests on a rejection of those direct experiences that formed the basis for, and indeed constituted, the old reality.” In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock.

The process of adapting to new intellectual technologies is reflected in the changing metaphors we use to explain ourselves to ourselves. When the mechanical clock arrived, people began thinking of their brains as operating “like clockwork.” Today, in the age of software, we have come to think of them as operating “like computers.” But the changes, neuroscience tells us, go much deeper than metaphor. Thanks to our brain’s plasticity, the adaptation occurs also at a biological level.

The Internet promises to have particularly far-reaching effects on cognition. In a paper published in 1936 , the British mathematician Alan Turing  proved that a digital computer, which at the time existed only as a theoretical machine, could be programmed to perform the function of any other information-processing device. And that’s what we’re seeing today. The Internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It’s becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.

When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image. It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.

The Net’s influence doesn’t end at the edges of a computer screen, either. As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations. Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info-snippets. When, in March of this year, The New York Times decided to devote the second and third pages of every edition to article abstracts , its design director, Tom Bodkin, explained that the “shortcuts” would give harried readers a quick “taste” of the day’s news, sparing them the “less efficient” method of actually turning the pages and reading the articles. Old media have little choice but to play by the new-media rules.

Never has a communications 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 of how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us. The Net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure.

About the same time that Nietzsche started using his typewriter, an earnest young man named Frederick Winslow Taylor  carried a stopwatch into the Midvale Steel plant in Philadelphia and began a historic series of experiments aimed at improving the efficiency of the plant’s machinists. With the approval of Midvale’s owners, he recruited a group of factory hands, set them to work on various metalworking machines, and recorded and timed their every movement as well as the operations of the machines. By breaking down every job into a sequence of small, discrete steps and then testing different ways of performing each one, Taylor created a set of precise instructions—an “algorithm,” we might say today—for how each worker should work. Midvale’s employees grumbled about the strict new regime, claiming that it turned them into little more than automatons, but the factory’s productivity soared.

More than a hundred years after the invention of the steam engine, the Industrial Revolution had at last found its philosophy and its philosopher. Taylor’s tight industrial choreography—his “system,” as he liked to call it—was embraced by manufacturers throughout the country and, in time, around the world. Seeking maximum speed, maximum efficiency, and maximum output, factory owners used time-and-motion studies to organize their work and configure the jobs of their workers. The goal, as Taylor defined it in his celebrated 1911 treatise, The Principles of Scientific Management , was to identify and adopt, for every job, the “one best method” of work and thereby to effect “the gradual substitution of science for rule of thumb throughout the mechanic arts.” Once his system was applied to all acts of manual labor, Taylor assured his followers, it would bring about a restructuring not only of industry but of society, creating a utopia of perfect efficiency. “In the past the man has been first,” he declared; “in the future the system must be first.”

Taylor’s system is still very much with us; it remains the ethic of industrial manufacturing. And now, thanks to the growing power that computer engineers and software coders wield over our intellectual lives, Taylor’s ethic is beginning to govern the realm of the mind as well. The Internet is a machine designed for the efficient and automated collection, transmission, and manipulation of information, and its legions of programmers are intent on finding the “one best method”—the perfect algorithm—to carry out every mental movement of what we’ve come to describe as “knowledge work.”

Google’s headquarters, in Mountain View, California—the Googleplex—is the Internet’s high church, and the religion practiced inside its walls is Taylorism. Google, says its chief executive, Eric Schmidt, is “a company that’s founded around the science of measurement,” and it is striving to “systematize everything” it does. Drawing on the terabytes of behavioral data it collects through its search engine and other sites, it carries out thousands of experiments a day, according to the Harvard Business Review , and it uses the results to refine the algorithms that increasingly control how people find information and extract meaning from it. What Taylor did for the work of the hand, Google is doing for the work of the mind.

The company has declared that its mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” It seeks to develop “the perfect search engine,” which it defines as something that “understands exactly what you mean and gives you back exactly what you want.” In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can “access” and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.

Where does it end? Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the gifted young men who founded Google while pursuing doctoral degrees in computer science at Stanford, speak frequently of their desire to turn their search engine into an artificial intelligence, a HAL-like machine that might be connected directly to our brains. “The ultimate search engine is something as smart as people—or smarter,” Page said in a speech a few years back. “For us, working on search is a way to work on artificial intelligence.” In a 2004 interview with Newsweek , Brin said, “Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.” Last year, Page told a convention of scientists that Google is “really trying to build artificial intelligence and to do it on a large scale.”

Such an ambition is a natural one, even an admirable one, for a pair of math whizzes with vast quantities of cash at their disposal and a small army of computer scientists in their employ. A fundamentally scientific enterprise, Google is motivated by a desire to use technology, in Eric Schmidt’s words, “to solve problems that have never been solved before,” and artificial intelligence is the hardest problem out there. Why wouldn’t Brin and Page want to be the ones to crack it?

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 a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized. In Google’s world, the world we enter when we go online, there’s little place for the fuzziness of contemplation. Ambiguity is not an opening for insight but a bug to be fixed. The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive.

The idea that our minds should operate as high-speed data-processing machines is not only built into the workings of the Internet, it is the network’s reigning business model as well. The faster we surf across the Web—the more links we click and pages we view—the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements. Most of the proprietors of the commercial Internet have a financial stake in collecting the crumbs of data we leave behind as we flit from link to link—the more crumbs, the better. The last thing these companies want is to encourage leisurely reading or slow, concentrated thought. It’s in their economic interest to drive us to distraction.

Maybe I’m just a worrywart. Just as there’s a tendency to glorify technological progress, there’s a countertendency to expect the worst of every new tool or machine. In Plato’s Phaedrus , Socrates bemoaned the development of writing. He feared that, as people came to rely on the written word as a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry inside their heads, they would, in the words of one of the dialogue’s characters, “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful.” And because they would be able to “receive a quantity of information without proper instruction,” they would “be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant.” They would be “filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom.” Socrates wasn’t wrong—the new technology did often have the effects he feared—but he was shortsighted. He couldn’t foresee the many ways that writing and reading would serve to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge (if not wisdom).

The arrival of Gutenberg’s printing press, in the 15th century, set off another round of teeth gnashing. The Italian humanist Hieronimo Squarciafico worried that the easy availability of books would lead to intellectual laziness, making men “less studious” and weakening their minds. Others argued that cheaply printed books and broadsheets would undermine religious authority, demean the work of scholars and scribes, and spread sedition and debauchery. As New York University professor Clay Shirky notes, “Most of the arguments made against the printing press were correct, even prescient.” But, again, the doomsayers were unable to imagine the myriad blessings that the printed word would deliver.

So, yes, you should be skeptical of my skepticism. Perhaps those who dismiss critics of the Internet as Luddites or nostalgists will be proved correct, and from our hyperactive, data-stoked minds will spring a golden age of intellectual discovery and universal wisdom. Then again, the Net isn’t the alphabet, and although it may replace the printing press, it produces something altogether different. The kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds. In the quiet spaces 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 , as Maryanne Wolf argues, is indistinguishable from deep thinking.

If we lose those quiet spaces, or fill them up with “content,” we will sacrifice something important not only in our selves but in our culture. In a recent essay , the playwright Richard Foreman  eloquently described what’s at stake:

I come from a tradition of Western culture, in which the ideal (my ideal) was the complex, dense and “cathedral-like” structure of the highly educated and articulate personality—a man or woman who carried inside themselves a personally constructed and unique version of the entire heritage of the West. [But now] I see within us all (myself included) the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self—evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the “instantly available.”

As we are drained of our “inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance,” Foreman concluded, we risk turning into “‘pancake people’—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.”

I’m haunted by that scene in 2001 . What makes it so poignant, and so weird, is the computer’s emotional response to the disassembly of its mind: its despair as one circuit after another goes dark, its childlike pleading with the astronaut—“I can feel it. I can feel it. I’m afraid”—and its final reversion to what can only be called a state of innocence. HAL’s outpouring of feeling contrasts with the emotionlessness that characterizes the human figures in the film, who go about their business with an almost robotic efficiency. Their thoughts and actions feel scripted, as if they’re following the steps of an algorithm. In the world of 2001 , people have become so machinelike that the most human character turns out to be a machine. That’s the essence of Kubrick’s dark prophecy: as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.

​​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic .

Is Google Making Us Stupid Thesis Statement

How it works

Every day, millions of people use the internet to learn, discover, and explore the world in ways that seemed nearly impossible hundreds of years ago. It is because of this new drastic change that many have questioned how this technology is affecting our brains, including Nicholas Carr in his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” While….. In his paper, he goes into the reasons why he believes the Internet is affecting our intelligence with examples to support his statements.

While he communicates how technology today is affecting our way of thinking, he does so ineffectively due to the bad structure, the lack of reliable resources, and a few other lacking features.

Carr begins with a quotation from the 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey describing how his changing brain circuitry is similar to supercomputer HAL losing control of his artificial “brain.” Carr starts with this example to show how the advancement of technology and the internet has lead to the “rewiring” of his brain. He states that while he used to be able to get immersed in a lengthy novel or article, he now finds it difficult to even maintain focus after a few pages. He begins to explain why he thinks this is happening by explaining his history with the internet. In his own words, he says the internet has been a godsend for him as a writer because of the ease to find reliable information and jumping from resource to resource. Although the positives, he acknowledges how media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed that the media shapes not only what we think about, but how we think overall. He then explains that the internet is slowly chipping away at his abilities to focus on and contemplate ideas for him and his colleagues.

When he contacted some of his friends, he heard multiple responses that reflected similar experiences to his own complaining about the more time they invested in the web, the more difficult it was to read long pieces of writing. Even bloggers that Carr follows, Scott Karp and Bruce Friedman, have expressed the same sentiments. After providing these individual accounts, he laments the waiting for experiments that will provide the answer of how the Internet affects our cognition. He goes on to say that according to results from a published study of online research habits, people visiting two popular research websites exhibited skimming activity. Although they sometimes would save a long article, there was no evidence of whether or not they fully read the article. Also, due to the prevalent amount of text all over the internet and popularity of online messaging and texting, people are more likely to be reading a lot more than they used to before the rise of the Internet.

Next in article, Carr talks about Friedrich Nietzche and how he bought a typewriter in attempts to continue writing as his vision weakened. Although one may think that this would have been an easy solution to his problem, it had created an entirely different problem. Nietzche’s writing had become more compact and tight according to his friends after he used the typewriter. He then brings up how the brain is *tech shows how brain is malleable* and that the brain has the ability to alter the way it functions almost instantly. The advancement of technology with devices like the clock changed the process of human action and thought to be structured within an abstract framework of divided time. This caused people to rely on the clock instead of their senses according to Carr. Adapting to these new technologies also affected the metaphors of our every day life. ***

Carr continues to explain how we used to think of our brains working “like clockwork,” but as time has progressed, we now think of our brains working “like computers.” All over various types of media, Carr notes how we can see pop-up ads, capsule summaries, and easy-to-absorb info-snippets that tend to distract us and switch our focus. Similar to when Nietzsche started using his typewriter, Carr tells how a young man named Fredrick Winslow Taylor used a stopwatch to create precise instructions so that workers would work more efficiently, almost like machines. Carr then remarks how the Industrial Revolution finally “found its philosophy” when Taylor sought out to maximize efficiency and create a stable system for industry. This philosophy has remained apart of our society for a while now, and its effects can be seen in the Internet, a machine designed for efficient and automated collection, transmission, and manipulation of information.

( I have only summarized about 2/3 of the article, but I think it is important that you review what I have now so I know I am summarizing correctly )

Is Google Making Us Stupid already misleads the audience even before they have read the article with its title. The title pulls in the reader by creating the concept that Google is detrimental to our intelligence, but in the article, he instead argues how the internet is changing how we think instead of our ability to learn.

At the start of the essay, he references the film 2001: A Space Odyssey in order to appeal to the audience, but it does so ineffectively. The film was made in 1968 and has received a great deal of praise throughout its history (source). While the film has been praised greatly, younger audiences will have a harder time being drawn into an article that is talking about a movie they have not even seen. The gap between the release of the movie and article spans a total of forty years which makes it hard to believe that the new generation has seen this film. Even though this introduction does not properly entice the audience, Carr does a decent job at explaining the reference he makes to 2001: A Space Odyssey, but a modern movie reference would have appealed to the audience more.

After his rough intro, Carr fails to prove his authority and uses unreliable resources creating a lack of trust with the author. When Carr begins to explain his argument, he comes across as a casual blogger who is not special in any particular way, except for the fact that he thinks that the internet is starting to affect how he thinks. If the reader were to do some research, they would learn that he had written three books by the time of this article and was writing the very popular blog Rough Type (source). All these examples could have been used in the article for the author to create a sense of authority, but he chose otherwise. He also lacks strong resources for his writing due to him referencing friends or inconclusive research. In the article, Carr mentions how his literary friends are also noticing the same issues that he has experienced. While this does prove that some people are experiencing similar issues to him, this does not show that this trend is common amongst many, especially since he does not provide a number for how many of his friends have expressed the same sentiments. Another source he uses to support his argument, a published study of online research habits, shows that people exhibited skimming activity when using the internet. He uses this to explain why the thought processes of many is changing, but the information and the article itself lacks enough information to affirm that.

Throughout Carr’s paper, it is difficult to read it due to a weak and unsteady structure. Throughout the paper, he will bring up previously discussed topics in different contexts which makes the article hard to read and interpret. He would also talk positively about the internet for maybe a paragraph or two, but then return to how the internet is changing him in a negative light. The lack of a strong opinion could be felt throughout the paper and made it difficult to even understand where Carr stood on the issue. Even by the end, he provides no argument as to which side he believe, but instead remind the reader of how he is “haunted” by scenes in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. If he had employed the use of an easy-to-follow format, then it would be easier to understand this paper overall. 

Cite this page

Is Google Making Us Stupid Thesis Statement. (2021, Apr 29). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/is-google-making-us-stupid-thesis-statement/

"Is Google Making Us Stupid Thesis Statement." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2021, https://papersowl.com/examples/is-google-making-us-stupid-thesis-statement/

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Is Google Making Us Stupid Thesis Statement . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/is-google-making-us-stupid-thesis-statement/ [Accessed: 19 May. 2024]

"Is Google Making Us Stupid Thesis Statement." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2021. Accessed May 19, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/is-google-making-us-stupid-thesis-statement/

"Is Google Making Us Stupid Thesis Statement," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2021. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/is-google-making-us-stupid-thesis-statement/. [Accessed: 19-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Is Google Making Us Stupid Thesis Statement . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/is-google-making-us-stupid-thesis-statement/ [Accessed: 19-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Is Google Making Us Stupid Summary, Purpose and Analysis

“Is Google Making Us Stupid?” is an article by Nicholas Carr, delving into the impacts of the internet on our cognitive abilities. 

Carr explores how his own mind has changed, noting a decline in his capacity for concentration and deep reading. He attributes this to his extensive online activities, which have reshaped his thinking patterns to align more with the rapid, skimming nature of web browsing.

Full Summary

Carr isn’t alone in his experience. 

He mentions friends and acquaintances, including literary types and bloggers, who share similar struggles with focusing on lengthy texts. The phenomenon isn’t just anecdotal; research backs it up. 

A study from University College London found that online reading often involves skimming rather than in-depth exploration, with people hopping between sources without fully engaging with any of them.

The article dives into the history of reading and its evolution, discussing how technologies like the printing press and now the internet have changed our approach to reading and, by extension, our thinking.

Carr draws on the perspectives of experts like Maryanne Wolf, who argues that the internet promotes a more superficial form of reading, impacting our ability to think deeply and make rich mental connections.

Carr also touches upon historical figures like Nietzsche, who experienced a change in his writing style after starting to use a typewriter. This example illustrates how new technologies can subtly influence our cognitive processes.

The broader implications of this shift are significant. As we increasingly rely on the internet for information, our minds adapt to its rapid, interruptive nature, potentially diminishing our capacity for contemplation and reflection. 

Carr suggests that this change might lead to a broader societal impact, where deep, critical thinking becomes less common, and we become more like “pancake people” – spread wide and thin in our knowledge and understanding.

In conclusion, Carr’s article raises important questions about the cognitive effects of the internet. 

While acknowledging the immense benefits of easy access to information, he urges us to consider what might be lost in this trade-off – the depth and richness of thought that comes from deep, uninterrupted reading and contemplation.

The purpose of the article is multifaceted and centers around exploring the impact of the Internet, particularly search engines like Google, on our cognitive processes, particularly our ability to concentrate, comprehend, and engage in deep thinking. 

The article serves several key functions, some of them being –

1. Raising Awareness about Cognitive Changes

Carr aims to draw attention to a subtle but profound shift in how our minds function due to prolonged exposure to the Internet. He shares personal experiences and observations to illustrate how our ability to concentrate and immerse ourselves in deep reading is diminishing. 

By doing so, he encourages readers to reflect on their cognitive experiences and recognize similar patterns in their behavior.

2. Stimulating Intellectual Discourse

The article is a springboard for broader discussion about the nature of intelligence, reading, and learning in the digital age. 

Carr doesn’t just present a personal dilemma but taps into a larger cultural and intellectual concern, inviting readers, educators, and scholars to ponder the implications of our growing dependency on digital technology for information processing.

3. Reviewing and Interpreting Research and Theories

Carr integrates research findings and theories from various fields, including neuroscience, psychology , and media studies, to provide a scientific basis for his arguments. 

He references studies and experts to suggest that the Internet’s structure and use patterns significantly influence our neural pathways, affecting our memory, attention spans, and even the depth of our thinking.

4. Historical Contextualization

The article places the current technological shift in a historical context, comparing the Internet’s impact on our cognitive abilities to that of previous technologies, such as the clock and the printing press. 

Carr uses historical analogies to show that while new technologies often bring significant benefits, they can also have unintended consequences for how we think and process information.

5. Provoking a Reevaluation of Our Relationship with Technology

Carr’s article serves as a call to critically assess our relationship with digital technology. He encourages readers to consider how their interactions with the Internet might be shaping their mental habits and to ponder if this influence is entirely beneficial.

6. Ethical and Philosophical Implications

The article also delves into the ethical and philosophical implications of allowing technology to mediate our understanding of the world. 

Carr reflects on the potential loss of certain cognitive abilities and the broader impact this could have on culture, creativity, and the human experience.

7. Encouraging Mindful Engagement with Technology

Ultimately, Carr’s article is a plea for mindful and balanced engagement with technology. 

While recognizing the immense benefits of the Internet, he advocates for a more conscious approach to how we use digital tools, suggesting that we should strive to preserve and cultivate our capacity for deep thought and contemplation.

Themes 

1. the transformation of reading habits and cognitive processes.

At the heart of Nicholas Carr’s exploration is the profound transformation in how we read and process information in the digital age. 

Carr delves into the subtle yet significant shift from deep, immersive reading of printed materials to the skimming and scanning habits fostered by the internet. This theme is not just a commentary on changing reading habits but a deeper inquiry into the cognitive consequences of such a shift. 

He reflects on his own experiences, noting a decreased ability to engage in prolonged, focused reading, which once came naturally. 

This change is attributed to the constant, rapid-fire consumption of information online, leading to a fragmented attention span. 

Carr’s discussion extends beyond personal anecdotes, incorporating research findings that support the notion of diminishing depth in our reading and thinking patterns due to the internet’s influence.

2. The Impact of Technology on Mental Processes and Creativity

Another significant theme in Carr’s article is the broader impact of technology, specifically the internet, on our mental processes and creativity. 

He raises concerns about the internet’s role in reshaping our thinking patterns, aligning them more with its non-linear, hyperlinked structure. This restructuring of thought processes is not just about how we seek and absorb information; it reaches into the realms of creativity and problem-solving. 

Carr invokes historical parallels, drawing on Nietzsche’s experience with the typewriter to illustrate how new technologies can subtly but fundamentally alter our cognitive styles. 

This theme is further enriched by references to various studies and experts, like Patricia Greenfield, who suggest that while certain cognitive abilities, like visual-spatial skills, are enhanced by digital media, this comes at the expense of more traditional, deeper cognitive skills such as reflective thought, critical thinking, and sustained attention.

3. The Dichotomy between Efficiency and Depth in the Digital Era

Carr navigates the complex dichotomy between the efficiency provided by the internet and the potential loss of depth in our thinking. This theme is woven throughout the article, contrasting the immediate, vast access to information against the possible erosion of our capacity for deep contemplation and critical analysis. 

Carr posits that while the internet acts as a powerful tool for quick information retrieval and processing, this rapid and efficient access might be undermining our ability to engage in more profound, contemplative thought processes. 

He questions whether the trade-off between the speed of information access and the richness of our intellectual life is worth it, suggesting that the convenience of the internet could be leading us to a more superficial understanding of the world around us. 

This theme is crucial as it encapsulates the broader societal implications of our growing dependency on digital technologies, prompting a reflection on what we gain and what we might be inadvertently sacrificing in the digital age.

Arguments and Evidence

• Personal Anecdotes : Carr begins with a personal anecdote, a rhetorical strategy that makes his argument relatable. He confesses his own struggles with concentration and deep reading, which he attributes to his internet usage.
• Historical References : He cites historical instances (like Nietzsche’s use of a typewriter) to illustrate how new technologies can subtly influence thinking and writing styles.
• Scientific Research : Carr references various studies and experts (like Maryanne Wolf and Bruce Friedman) to support his claims about the internet’s impact on our cognitive functions.
• Philosophical and Cultural Reflections : He integrates philosophical and cultural perspectives, discussing how different technologies have historically influenced human thought and culture.
• Introduction : Carr opens with a reference to Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” as a metaphor for his argument. This draws the reader in with a familiar cultural reference.
• Development of Argument : The article unfolds systematically, beginning with personal observations, then moving to broader social implications and scientific evidence.
• Conclusion : Carr concludes by reflecting on the implications of these changes, leaving the reader with questions about the role of technology in our lives.

Strengths and Weaknesses

• Engaging Narrative : Carr’s use of personal and historical anecdotes makes the article engaging and relatable.
• Interdisciplinary Approach : He incorporates insights from neuroscience, psychology, history, and culture, providing a well-rounded argument.
• Provocative and Thought-Provoking : The article successfully provokes deeper thought about our relationship with technology.
• Subjectivity : The heavy reliance on personal anecdotes may lead to questions about the universality of his experiences.
• Potential for Technological Determinism : Some might argue that Carr leans towards a deterministic view of technology, underestimating human agency in adapting to and shaping technological uses.

Overall Impact

Carr’s article is a significant contribution to the discourse on the internet’s impact on human cognition. 

It challenges readers to critically assess their interactions with digital technology and consider the broader implications for society and culture. 

While it raises more questions than it answers, it serves as a catalyst for further exploration and discussion on the role of technology in shaping our minds and lives.

Sharing is Caring!

A team of Editors at Books That Slay.

Passionate | Curious | Permanent Bibliophiles

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

From the book the best technology writing 2009.

• Nicholas Carr
• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Chapters in this book (24)

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

24 pages • 48 minutes read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Essay Analysis

Key Figures

Symbols & Motifs

Literary Devices

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Discussion Questions Beta

Use the dropdowns below to tailor your questions by title, pre- or post-reading status, topic, and the difficulty level that suits your audience. Click "Generate," and that's it! Your set of ready-to-discuss questions will populate in seconds.

Select and customize your discussion questions!

Your Discussion Questions

Your results will show here.

Our AI tools are evolving, sometimes exhibiting inaccuracies or biases that don't align with our principles. Discover how AI and expert content drive our innovative tools. Read more

Related Titles

By Nicholas Carr

The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains

Nicholas Carr

Featured Collections

Essays & Speeches

View Collection

Google and Stupidity Essay

Problem of intelligence, possible causes.

A storehouse of knowledge and useful information – an immensely valuable tool, which is the Internet – allows all people to almost instantly access any information that interests them. Every day, users come there to chat with friends on social networks, play games, read something, or watch, and therefore, for many people, almost all their lives go online. With the help of the World Wide Web, people can share their experiences with other users and accumulate knowledge. Discussions about whether digital technologies make people stupid began with their global spread. Scientists around the world are researching whether the dominance of the Internet and other scientific advances contribute to brain degradation. However, the leading causes most likely to lie in fact, any tool that brings comfort eliminates the extra and healthy stress, which is needed for bodies and minds to grow.

The constant use of the Internet necessarily leads to changes in the functioning of the human brain. Surfing the Internet makes intellectual activity superficial, and thus, the skill necessary for a modern person to quickly and regularly browse sites leads to the fact that the human brain gradually loses its ability to deep and systemic thinking. This conclusion was made by Nicholas Carr, a leading American expert in the field of cyber information (Carr, 2016). Carr led a group of research psychologists, and two years ago, he became known all over the world after the publication of the article, “Does Google make us stupid?”. He stated that: “Once you create an engine – a machine – to produce serendipity, you destroy the essence of serendipity.” (Carr, 2016). The largest technology companies around the world do not underestimate the problem of the relationship between the creative abilities of man and the Internet. The American aircraft manufacturer Boeing created a special expert group that works with young engineers (Montag & Reuter, 2017). Its goal is to maintain the intellectual form of specialists. The group teaches a balanced approach to find information on the Internet and in the scientific literature.

The latest studies of neurosurgeons show that when working on the Internet, two areas of the brain develop very quickly: the center responsible for making quick decisions, and the part responsible for short-term memory. However, the deep zones of the brain, in which there is a detailed analysis of fundamental problems related to all aspects of human activity and life, do not receive the necessary impulses (Seok, Lee, Sohn, & Sohn, 2015). As a result, the intensity of their work is reduced, and the “obsession” of people with Internet surfing leads to impulsiveness and a loss of ability to leisurely and in-depth intellectual activity.

Moreover, people who are always online are complaining of fatigue, irritability, and difficulty in perceiving. Young people who are accustomed to correspondence with short messages, to watch short videos and concise texts are no longer so easily forced to read a whole book. People stop worrying about remembering information because they can always use the Internet. Jumping from one resource to another, a constant distraction to e-mails, notifications about messages lead to “computer fatigue,” when it becomes more difficult for users to focus on one thing and think slowly and in-depth (Montag & Reuter, 2017). This is especially important for small users who grow up with laptops in their hands instead of toys.

However, in reality, the causes are not so simple. Still, the Internet is stimulated by the brain centers responsible for making quick decisions, hand-eye coordination, and the level of visual literacy. As a result of this, people develop critical thinking skills, improve the ability to form their opinions, and the ability to filter out the necessary information. Research confirms that using the Internet as “external brains,” where facts are stored, frees up space for other mental processes. To acquire knowledge from a wide variety of sources, question it, analyze and evaluate it, question the sources themselves, but the individual details of the mosaic into a meaningful whole – all this must be done independently. Without this, it is impossible to master knowledge and skills, and therefore, it is not a question of memorizing any information (Ainin, Jaafar, Ashraf, & Parveen, 2017). No one will become a climber by remembering the names of mountains or road signs on routes. The climber has this knowledge, but it is obvious that this is far from all the skills he needs.

Nevertheless, impaired mental processes and memory impairment are not the only negative effects of the Internet on humans. Plunging headlong into the network of the World Wide Web, a person gradually loses the skills of real communication, which leads to some of the absence of social integration. The main reason is that: “Why meet friends, when you can chat with them on Skype, why make arrangements with someone live or call up, if you can just send an e-mail, why search and buy goods in ordinary stores, when you can buy anything, don’t leaving the house” (Montag & Reuter, 2017). That is, previously described as advantages, all these amenities with prolonged and non-alternative use turn into a problem. Thus, difficulties in communicating with new people begin to appear, and getting into an unfamiliar company for an Internet-dependent person completely becomes a stressful situation.

Furthermore, a person closes in himself or herself, which affects his or her work or study, and he or she has problems with sleep and eating. Some unhealthy attachment to information technology even leads to suicide (Carr, 2016). In addition to mental and mental disorders, Internet addiction is dangerous, and the occurrence of physical diseases. Spending a monstrous amount of time at the monitor screens, people may damage their vision, and many might acquire tunnel syndrome (Montag & Reuter, 2017). Internet addiction, which is accompanied by a sedentary lifestyle, can lead to various diseases of the spine and joints, cardiovascular pathologies, and many other conditions.

In conclusion, such a process cannot be unambiguously called “stupidity” – it is not so much a decrease in quality as a change in the type of thinking. People’s brain is adapting to the digital environment, the way of thinking is changing, but there is nothing tragic about it. Likewise, almost two and a half thousand years ago, the great philosopher Socrates criticized the appearance of writing, saying that it weakens memory and mind, because people do not need to remember knowledge, but they need to remember where it is written in order to be able to access it. Evidently, the quality and reliability of the information on the network can vary greatly. Different people are looking for different information, the one that corresponds to their intellectual development. Therefore, Internet surfing gives a mixed effect, which in other words means that it is able to make smart people even smarter, and low IQ people even less intelligent. Nonetheless, in general, the Internet is neutral in relation to people’s brains and its work.

Ainin, S., Jaafar, N. I., Ashraf, M., & Parveen, F. (2017). Exploring the role of demographics and psychological variables in internet addiction. Social Science Computer Review, 35 (6), 770-780.

Carr, N. (2016). Utopia is creepy: And other provocations . London, UK: W. W. Norton & Company.

Montag, C., & Reuter, M. (2017). Internet addiction: Neuroscientific approaches and therapeutical implications including smartphone addiction . New York, NY: Springer.

Seok, J. W., Lee, K. H., Sohn, S., & Sohn, J. H. (2015). Neural substrates of risky decision making in individuals with Internet addiction. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49 (10), 923-932.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, December 3). Google and Stupidity. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-google-making-us-stupid-essay/

"Google and Stupidity." IvyPanda , 3 Dec. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/is-google-making-us-stupid-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Google and Stupidity'. 3 December.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Google and Stupidity." December 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-google-making-us-stupid-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Google and Stupidity." December 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-google-making-us-stupid-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Google and Stupidity." December 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-google-making-us-stupid-essay/.

• Flight into Canada by Ishmael Reed
• Humility as a Divine Virtue of a Religious Person
• The Role of the State in Economics From the Point of View of Economics and the Bible
• Gender Inequality as a Global Issue
• Causes and Effects of Animal Cruelty
• Causes and Effects of Child Labor
• The Main Causes of Youth Violence
• The Problem of Overpopulation