Read the article from the Atlantic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
and the letters to the editor related to the article
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810/letters
Post comments on the following questions.
Has the Internet changed the way you think and process information?
How can the ideas about thinking and information processing presented in the article be applied to the classroom?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I can see his point and it makes sense. But one of my teachers made a good point the other day; "If you go looking in a cesspool, you're going to find crap." I believe there is a positive and a negative to everything and if all you dwell on is the negative, then what good can it be? I know he said he wasn't trying to be a 'worrywart' but the fact that he put this much time and energy into makes me think that he is worrying and too much. I don't think we are becoming stupid; our intelligence is changing just like everything else. Little in this world is static, so why shouldn't how we think change like the world around us. Though we should change, we do need to be mindful of things that are important enough to keep around. The ability to focus, not just on reading, but on anything is an important ability to keep around.
I didn't find the story to be negative; just thought-provoking.
There is an old saying that "tools make fools"; which I believe is the same argument that the author uses, as well as Plato.
The idea being if you use a tool to solve a problem, you don't really have to understand the complexity of the problem.
If it is easy to "look up" answers;
we wont put in the effort to have the knowledge stored in our brains (where we can look it up even faster).
Have we replaced storing knowledge in our brains, by the use of technology? Certainly the use of computers for hours per day was something that was not done say
even 25 years ago. This left a lot more time for reading.
It also meant that mass communication was not as efficient as it is now. This left us with more time to consider what was coming next, rather than waiting
15 minutes for the next report on the net or radio.
THe idea that magazines and TV shows are having to reshape
themselves to try to be more like the internet was fascinating.
I do think that magazines and newspapers will be subsumed eventually into the internet (no longer paper-distributed). I think devices like the I-Phone which
combine technologies will become the norm. People wont have separate phone, PDA, camera, videocam, etc, these will be combined into a single powerful device.
Google's idea of having a "brain" gadget is a bit chilling. Imagine a device that is like "your personal adviser". Imagine the power of programming that. Having the ability to "steer" people to doing things by the way this "brain gadget" responds. Scary.
Actually, I think Google is making me smarter, not dumber. :-) I am able to look things up and find the answers right when I want to know them (when I have a “present need” – is that Dewey’s phrase? I could Google it to find out).
I liked this quote of Socrates very much: “filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom,” criticizing people who used to read those newfangled books versus people who were taught by masters (such as himself). Socrates was into questioning and challenging what people thought they knew, which probably made his pupils much wiser, and certainly less conceited, than those who simply got their knowledge from books. (But isn't there also something elitist in his complaint, since books were likely cheaper to obtain than the service of a tutor? Or maybe he was thinking of his enemies, the Sophists, who sounded smart, without speaking a word of Truth.)
I think there are a lot of really positive things about the Internet and Google in particular. However, the general vein of doubting scientific progress (Lewis Mumford's ideas for example) is something that I find interesting and valuable. There are a lot of "big" questions that science doesn't answer, including some big ethical questions that new technologies raise.
But here's one, I think this is on the same track as what Jay was getting at: does knowledge have any meaning if it just exists as something outside of us?
For example, previous generations could recite poems and passages from history books or famous speeches. Today, we could Google it, maybe find a digital copy of the original to listen to. However, whom would it mean more to, after ten or fifty years: the person who still knew it by heart? or the person who still knew how to find it on the Internet -- if the Internet is still around, and as free and accessible as it is today?
I completely agree with what Bryan said about dwelling on the negative. I do not think that we need to think of the internet as making us stupid but it actually just gives us more tools to utilize. I think that as technology evolves and there are different ways to learn things, our learning patterns and habits as people change along with it. I was a generation that did not have the internet when I was in elementary school, so I grew up reading and looking things up in books to find my research. This however has slowly evolved since the technology is better. I no longer need to spend hours with my nose in a book to find the information that I need. I can simply hop on the internet in order to find it. Because I am not reading to find it does not make me less intelligent, but more resourceful.
I have a couple of recent examples to illustrate some information technology issues. My high school junior daughter recently completed a research paper. When I read her paper and looked at her cited sources, I found 90% of them were from the Internet (they were actually pretty good sources of information). When I asked her about her research sources, she said that it was "too time consuming" to go to the library and conduct research.
The chemistry students at my TAP high school recently completed a paper on the history of the atomic theory. The students were given time during class to use laptops to conduct research for their papers. No other instruction was given regarding non web based research.
I think that as educators we're missing something. Our students are developing skills to use the Internet (this is a good thing!). However, from what I have observed, I am not sure that we're teaching students how to use other sources of information. Maybe the students are getting this training in other classes, but I am not seeing it in science classes. I think that this is a mistake. It seems to me that the students need to be taught how to use the traditional sources of information as well as electronic sources.
I'm not too worried about google making us stupid, I'm mostly worried that it's making us lazy. It seems all this new technology is developed just so we don't have to do the work, it is being done for us. I don't think it is "making us stupid" though. Being intellegent is not how much information you have stored in your brain, which the author seems to suggest. I do think someone can become more intellegent with access to all the information in the world, but I don't think they can become less intellegent because of it. I do agree that it is possible to lose concentration while reading a long/deep book because you become used to retrieving information much quickly through the internet but it doesn't mean you lost any intellegence you may have had before. It's just natural that we want information faster and faster. It's like a learning curve, the more someone gets used to something the faster they get at it; so the longer we live as a society, the faster we will get at "living", and it shows with capability we are able to retrieve information through the internet. The internet/google is just another step in our progression as a society, just like books, the printing press, and now computers.
And though the internet is a tool to help, as Kerry has pointed with his examples, we can't just simply forget about other ways. We need to find the happy medium. We need to be able to do things more efficiently and therefore save time, which is precious, but also have the understanding and the respect for how those who came before us did things.
I don't think that Google is making us stupid as mentioned before by several people, it just makes us lazy. How many of us when asked to do research first go to the Internet instead of the Library to look up books that have the information. For most of us access to the internet is quicker than driving to the library and looking through the who knows how many books of information about a certain topic.
Our society is a fast paced world and the Internet is just another way to help us keep up. Is it going to harm our students if we teach them the old fashioned way of researching of course not, but we need to also show them that there are other ways to conduct research and if that way is through the Internet to show them how to make sure that information is correct.
I can appreciate the author's point of view. I, too, am concerned with what appears to be an over-reliance on technology/tools. Kerry's message about his daughter being somewhat resistant to other forms of information because of the effort required is telling. Perhaps even more of an issue to me is the issue of losing social skills. We rely on so many of these tools for SO much. The fear of losing our humanity concerns me more than anything else. That Plato was resistant to writing tells me that I may be over-reacting to the various technological issues so I DO take some of my concerns with a grain of salt. I would be curious to see if my daughter would even have a hint in navigating the research tools in the library. We do have an encyclopedia (PC-based) that could potentially get us past the lack of an internet. Finally, to place so many of our eggs in the internet basket is somewhat concerning as well. The internet is not bulletproof and unless you're looking for information you better ensure your source is reliable and not the proverbial cesspool Bryan wrote of.
I would have to agree that the internet has changed the way I think. If longevity has anything to do with how we think, I had a hard time reading the whole article, but let’s face it, I’m so tired right now I think I would have a hard time reading anything longer than a paragraph (so I apologize for the length of this comment).
Accessibility is my big problem with the library. When I want to look up some information, I find it frustrating when I have to order a book from the library network or wait for someone to return it. It is far more convenient when I just hop on my computer and look at what I need. Not to mention that then I don’t have to carry around armloads of heavy books. I disagree with the whole skimming articles, but not books thing. I certainly would not read an entire book for a small piece of information. I skim books just like I skim an online article for the pertinent information. The only difference is that I am skimming many more articles from online sources because they are so much more accessible.
I don’t think that books are better than online sources; in fact they can both be just as good or bad. The difference is that it costs a lot of money to actually publish a book, so fewer people are interested in “faking” a book than an online article. We have to be careful about all the information that we use, which leads be to my next point.
I firmly agree with all of you who have said that it is not that we are using the internet to look up information it is how we are doing it. I was appalled at the lack of instruction that was provided to the chemistry students at Benson doing a research project. The project was on nuclear radiation so I don’t think the school library would have had the technical information they were looking for. In either case though the students have no clue what is a good source and what is not. When I asked how the teachers where helping the students with research issues, they said they were not helping them at all and that they don’t have time to worry about that (which they really don’t have the time). The groups were expected to have 10 to 20 sources for a 15 minute presentation, but no one was looking to see if the sources were acceptable. It isn’t quantity that we should be going for, but quality. Also most of the kids don’t read enough of the site to gain a perspective of context and what the hidden agenda of the site might be. They are skimming the page to look for a key word and then read a sentence or two and hope it fits with what they need. No one teaches them that information from a commercial site trying to sell you something will be different then a government site or a regulatory site for that product. To me this is not Google’s fault, but our failure. We were all taught at one time, how to look at sources and their context in a book to determine validity, but for some reason we are not teaching kids the same research techniques today when looking online.
Sorry I couldn't read all of these blogs because some of them are longer than my attention span can handle. I had to resort to skimming. However, I don't think the internet has changed my thinking or processing ability. I feel that I am still as studious (or for those that know me un-studious) as I've always been. I agree with Bryan's comment about our brain being as static as the world around us. It doesn't make sense for us to think and process like people in the past.
To short cut or not to short cut? Irony engulfs this blog. The fact we are reviewing an article most of us skimmed to find relevance in order to discuss the ideas of long vs short reading in hilarious! Our brains are adapting to the new technology even as we write for our tech class. We, humans, revel in the idea of exploring new places. Whether it be new continents, space or theory we want to go as quickly as possible. This is why reading came to the masses. It isn’t fun unless you master how to do it with speed and understanding. Technology is about speed and not necessarily understanding. How different would our world be if the Romans would have had tanks for conquering Europe, Asia and Africa instead of horses? What if the European explorers used nuclear power instead of sails to explore our undeveloped world? I’m not saying technology should be retarded for development but there is an essence to having time as a restriction to form understanding. I am as guilty as the next grad student to skim information and write it quickly on parchment before the concept has solidified in my “plastic” brain. The question is “is this my best work?” I do believe libraries are a dying pastime but reading isn’t. Although I try to work as “efficiently” as possible, my free time is spent reading book after book to my son. And when boredom sets in on the Wii or Xbox in my living room, I can think of no better place to be than a world built on the imagination formed between the paper pages of someone else’s words.
I agree with what many in the class have already stated. I believe that Google is helping us, rather than making us "dumber." I really feel that this search engine has made it possible to find more ideas and research when trying to locate a topic. I personally use it as my main search engine, and have even learned a few tricks in narrowing down my search.
Knowing that not everything posted will be correct or even reliable is something that students need to know. Just simply typing in a word into the search line isn't a reliable search and they need to fully read the article to understand what's in the text.
I know that I have benefited from "googling" things, even people, and it really has changed the way in which searches are done. Finding information that can be used is what's important for students to know.
I also agree with what many people said about the internet being a valuable resource, in addition to tradition forms of knowledge gathering. Like any knowledge source, it should not and is not meant to be used in isolation, but then again, nor are books. I think that any source of information has its positives and negatives that have to be considered. Even books have negatives, such as bias inherent in the point of view of the author. The internet is the same. There are good sources of information on the internet and there is crap. One needs to possess the skills and know how to navigate through those various sources and weed out the crap. This is true of any knowledge source. The kids in one of my classes are working on cultural research projects and they have to have three different sources from both print and online media. Again, neither should be used as a stand-alone source, but when used together can provide the kids rich and balanced information. I personally like using google because it is so fast and i can utilize it from home. Whenever i am curious about something or want to know about something, I can just hop on the computer and look it up. There's a wealth of knowledge literally at my fingertips. I also like the interactive capabilities of the internet. I think if the author considered those of us who know how to use the internet properly and considered that those who don't to use it properly can be taught, it would alleviate a lot of his complaints and made for a more well-rounded article.
After reading this article, I was reminded of a saying" Too much of anything is not good". As an educator, I feel that Google and Internet has really enhanced my knowledge in allowing me to be able to access info immediately. I do agree with Maryann Wolf, that" we are not just what we read but how we read". She feels that those that rely heavily on online resources and info tend to be online decoders. I do feel that it important that my student have the rich experience of various ways or researching and learning about information. I feel that they need to celebrate the experience of utilizing the web as a research as well as spending time to read in text books and other non web material. I do love the idea that with the emergence of Google and the web, my students also have the opportunity to receive more live, visual and authentic experiences that they may not have been able to have before internet or Google. I also love that by utilizing Google, their research experience will not be hampered with "it taking too much time". Because info is received so quickly, students are able to have more access and get a faster grasp of the info.
I found this article to be very interesting and thought provoking. I do not agree that because I utilize the internet that my intelligence is artificial, I actually feel that my intelligence and brain capacity is broadened.
As I read this article, I found myself wishing that it were in print. I hate reading articles on the computer. Of course the solution would have been to print it off an read it that way. But I didn't want to kill a tree. I feel that I am the person who loves books and reading articles. I love to have things in print. There is a huge move to make everything digital. So many of the articles and assignments I have for school are now only accessible online.
My thoughts and questions about the article of course focused on the "loss of intelligence", but the issue I keep running into is the physical changes it is having on the human body. What is is doing to our eyes? What about our posture? Do the positives of the internet and computers outweigh the negatives?
I see both sides of the argument. I think the use of Google and other search engines on the internet has made things very accessible and easy to use. However, not everything is reliable, and there is still much to be said about print materials. I think it is a skill that should still be taught. People should be able to read books and gather appropriate information. It is also easier to regulate print materials. You can find any on the internet.
A good thing about Google is that it enables us to work on task that are more complex. We don't have to waste tedious time looking through hoards of books. The information is right at our fingertips, and we can focus our attention on the real problems.
I agree with Courtney in thinking that google and the internet is making me smarter. At least from my point of view. I have access to current events, and all sorts of facts that would be hard for me to find without the internet.
I do think we need to look at the internet and what the students and people in general are finding from the internet. As we've seen, internet sites can look completley genuine, and be completely fake. We need to teach students to verify what they are finding, and back it up with facts. Then there are no limits to the knowlegde can be found on the internet
My argument is definitely twofold. On one side I agree with the general consensus that Google and the Internet in general has been a positive influence. The WWW has allowed us such easy access to mass amounts of information (possibly unreliable) with which our wildest questions can be answered. However, this all comes with the heavy price of a loss of drive to be thorough. In my internship, I have seen students that have completely lost (possibly never had) the ability to research using printed text. I’m talking about using indexes and glossaries. Is the internet and Google quicker and easier? Yes! But…. I am not seeing the payoff in meaningful knowledge gained. Is Google making us stupid? No, just blissfully ignorant of what having to work for your knowledge can gain you.
I have to agree with Jay on this one. Case in point: my cell phone. This "tool" has dwindled my mental capacity for remembering phone numbers to a miniscule measure. I only have maybe 10 numbers memorized at best. We also no longer write numbers in planners. God forbid I lose my cell phone and get stranded someplace. I would be hard pressed to remember the numbers of people I could call after exhausting my 10 numbers. I do however believe that the benefits of technological tools outweigh the problems.
Post a Comment