As I was reading some of other blog posts about the Google article (posting late does have its advantages), everyone seemed to think that the internet was some sort of tool of humankind's inevitable destruction and that AI is going to consume our brains and take over the world. Ok, maybe it wasn't that drastic, but still, I don't see anything wrong with using the internet to obtain information faster and more efficiently than ever before. Being able to search for any tidbit of information that currently eludes us is not a bad thing. It allows us to learn things that we otherwise would never have figured out. Carr himself admitted that we read more today than people ever did in the 70's and 80's, and this is thanks to the plethora of information available online. No human could ever know every single thing about everything in the universe, but the internet is as close to a complete archive of the universe as there could possibly ever be, and we can use this vast resource to increase our own knowledge, not decrease it.
I'm also inclined to disagree with the fact that our ability to concentrate has been destroyed by the flashy messages on Yahoo or the multitude of links available on every webpage (there are 18 on this page alone). However distracting they may be, I don't think our brains are completely rewired because of them. I for one hardly click on any links other than the ones necessary to bring me to where I intended to go in the first place, and I completely ignore any adds or flashy messages. It's not as if every distraction is a siren luring you in just to kill you (or at least make you dumber) as soon as you fall prey to it's seduction. It's certainly not impossible to impose a little self-control and limit your browsing, thereby resisting the "inevitable" dummification (yes I just made that word up) of the human race.
Carr mentioned that he can no longer focus on lengthy readings, but I find it hard to believe that the internet is completely destroying our ability to concentrate and formulate intellectual thoughts. Even I, a teenager who spends vast amounts of time playing video games, can still appreciate a lengthy text from time to time. In fact, I'm quite enjoying the non-fiction book I chose to read over the summer, which happens to be a 440 page history book with big pages and small print about the ultimate causation of why societies are the way they are today. I may not be reading it cover to cover in one day, but I'm having no trouble concentrating on it at all. If I can do it, so can a literature buff. If they surf the web so much that their thinking has turned "staccato," I think the problem is that they're just on the internet too much. They can control exactly how much they're on the internet as well as the pace at which they read articles online. It's all about moderation. The internet may be vast with many flashy diversions and even more useless information, but that in itself is not enough to change how we think.
I totally agree with you that the internet isn't harming our skills at reading. I also ignore all of the blinking advertisements on the side of the screen and can't imagine that they have any influence on me at all. I don't know how much information the author read off the computer to think so either.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the author that reading and concentrating on deep essays is difficult when you read them directly from the computer screen. It hurts my eyes, and I am easily distracted by other things. But, I also don't think the internet sources are meant to be read directly from the computers for hours on end. They are meant to be read quickly, which is what we are in the mind set of when we read things on the computer.
I also think that the whole issue has an age aspect in it as well. Our generation has grown up with the internet being our main source of information; we aren't used to much else. The author is older and therefore has a different view of the internet that our generation will never be able to relate to.