I found it in the very end and thought that the title should have been different since most of it was not about Google. His already terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic. In addition, I will be analyzing Carr's method using the Toulmin model; where I will break down his claims, data, warrants, backing and rebuttals that he may use through out his article. 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. Google just puts all the important pieces of the internet in one place. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we're glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper's site.
I either become too distracted by my surroundings or by ads that pop up in various places of my screen. Is Google making us stupid? He went on to add that immersing himself in a lengthy article initially used to be very easy. Afterwards, Carr claims that it has a large distraction on our mind, and we even cannot concentrate on a long reading material. I can feel it most strongly when I'm reading. That day is long since past. Technology is running our lives more and more everyday.
Carr spends pages of words to stress the susceptibility of the human brain and how much the use of the Internet would change how the human brain works. Google could make you dumb and stupit at the same time. Then why did that worry go away? In this way, Google has conditioned us to categorize our thoughts into main subjects and as a result has made us smarter searchers. But Carr does not really prove why he feels google is stupid. While I agree that the internet reduces our ability to concentrate and read deeply and thus the way we process information, the notion that Google is slowly rewiring our brain and modes of cognition to become more computer like is a stretch.
We are disengaged from our connection to reading in the traditional way, a way that allowed us to absorb all information. Throughout his article, Carr discusses how people are beginning to rely on the internet as their primary source of information. Even if literature is losing its primacy in storytelling, we might still hold out hope that the book as the best way to covey a complex idea. Electricity is warming up the earth and that's bad. How about in a day? As a resident of California, I vote my opinion on the generation of power, the definition of marriage and the treatment of farm animals. I also thought that his example of the clock, as an invention that really shaped how we thought about the world was a really good example.
The usual thought process of people residing in a developing country is that, an individual can only. Clay Shirky is not just questioning Tolstoy, he is questioning the culture of literature. If anything our worry has mutated. We are now trying to comprehend the global village with minds that were designed to handle a patch of savanna and a close circle of friends. I enjoyed the connection that was made between a robot having more emotions than the human being, it was a nice way to end the article. As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information.
I do not mean to suggest that all the information we gather is for civic purposes. That such godlike powers should be reserved to an elite, perhaps even renounced. Additionally, he argues that the Internet's dominant business model is one that thrives as companies either collect information on users or deliver them advertisements, therefore companies capitalize on users who move from link to link rather than those who engage in sustained thought. I think his evidence to this point, the story of the writer and the typewriter, was one that gave power to this argument and worked fluidly with the structure of his logic. With the rise of technology and the staggering availability of information, the digital age has come about in full force, and will only grow from here. According to Carr, the view expressed by Mumford about technological progress was incorrect because it regarded technology solely as advances in science and engineering rather than as an influence on the costs of production and consumption.
In these introductory paragraphs, Carr effetively balances his own personal experiences and anecdotes with the perspectives of experts in the field and a pertinent study about how computers affect research habits. This is an invalid argument. Since the issue that Nicholas Carr brings up is very significant, he uses very meticulous instances to illustrate his way of thinking. We really don't want to think like Google. The typewriter rescued him, at least for a time.
Similarly, the idea of big data, customized advertisement and machine learning is conceived and practiced by humans. In the world of 2001, people have become so machinelike that the most human character turns out to be a machine. We are less willing to abide boring ideas and writing. 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. But that growth of technology has also raised a vast amount of concerns, and most of it due to its negative effect on our mind — the users who benefit from it. It is certainly true that particular technologies can make you stupid.
Carr believed that the effect of the Internet on cognition was detrimental, weakening the ability to concentrate and contemplate. In the article by Carr on is Google making us stupid, the primary point presented by the author is that he is that the web has grown to become our main source of information hence it has resulted to affecting our capacity to read books and other long pieces. Carr was able to successfully pull from many different sources, including a shout out to a Tufts Professor herself, and integrate quotes seamlessly to support his argument. We don't have to use our brains to process whether it is relevant information, or even if it is biased or credible. And when there is never, ever any way to decisively determine which is which? Many of us feel overwhelmed by information overload and unable to spend sufficient time on one topic. These technologies will enable more precise and systematic analysis of customers and bring enormous profit to the Internet tycoons, but there is still little evidence showing artificial intelligent is taking over human intelligence. As evidence, he cites the case of Inuit hunters in northern Canada.
. I agree with your statement that never before has it been easier to connect and communicate with people around the world. I need to exercise my brain to think again, and not merely process. Andrew's School in Delaware, and the author of The Next Renaissance, or the Age of. But the machine had a subtler effect on his work. He is a skilled writer and is widely read.