Google Dumbing Us Down?
In a new article that appears in the Atlantic comes the following:
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.
I just posted earlier on this topic, sort of, at David Warlick’s blog, in response to his adding of a formatting bar to his so-called Blogmeister tool. I approved of the decision, but believed that online writing and reading deserves pedagogical time that likely it does not.
To wit, the famous Friedrich Nietzsche had this to say:
“You are right,” Nietzsche replied, “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.”
A new tool deserves new thought on what it does well. How it affects our communications, for sure. How does it affect our ability to learn?
Of course this is important. To wit:
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
I don’t worry so much as the author of this piece, Nicholas Carr does, about losing my humanity by treating my brain like a computer. As educators, I think we need to harness the capabilities of the Net for its benefits. And some of those benefits may be new ways in acquiring knowledge and thinking. This isn’t necessarily bad, just because it’s different.
But it does remind me of another thing I read recently, at Jason Kottke’s blog, about what would happen if we were to go back 1000 years or so in a Benelux country. Would I survive? Yes, I’m too dependent upon Google. But when Google is ubiquitous as clean water, I think we’ll be okay.
Until time travel is possible, that is.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
I don’t understand. Reading on paper is different because we read slower and…What? Learn more? Does he have proof? I know I’m posting without reading the article, but I just don’t think such claims have any merit. Being dismissive of new technologies is, I guess, very human.
I don’t think reading online is dumbing us down. I think we simply don’t treasure text as we used to because of the sheer amount and variety at our fingertips. As a kid, I was fourth in line to read the newspaper. First my dad, then my mom, then my sister, and finally me. Each of us would take the time to check out every column and ad. Now, I can access the same newspaper’s website any time of the day, and it doesn’t look any more smudged or wrinkled for having been read before. I don’t have to savor my turn with the paper before handing it over to my brother. Not only that, I know I can search and re-read any old day.
I’m not understanding less of what I read, or remembering less. I just have different reading habits.
Could we make the same argument when we went from being an agrarian society to an industrialized one? We don’t savor our food, or get enough nutrition from it because we don’t grow it and prepare it ourselves? In the old days, farmers enjoyed the fruits of their labor. Now we shop at Ukrop’s and snack our way through life…
June 11th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Bea, I think he is talking about the depth of reading, not breadth.
I think this notion is, in fact, somewhat nostalgic, but I also see negative effects when I see kids print what they find on Google and turn it in: “I’ve found it, it’s mentioned here!”
Yes, the same student never really read it; they saw enough to skim and match what they were after.
When the tech changes, so needs to change the pedagogy and expectations.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
John,
What you just mentioned in your reply is the TEACHER’s Fault not he kid’s. Students will work up to the bar you place in front of them, no matter how high or how low you set it.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
MW:
I can’t say for certain in the case I mention, but I get your point. And that was my point–in the original comment I made on Warlick’s blog–that it is critical to teach the use of the tools used.
Research needs retaught, writing on a computer needs retaught, writing blogs, communicating, etc., etc., requires pedagogy that takes into account the tools (technology) being used.
This is why, I am sure, when teachers tell kids to take notes, and they see something being scribbled down, that’s adequate. Whoa! Do they know how? Do they know how to use what they wrote? Heck no, unless someone else has already taught them a strategy.
I just did a video outlining how to “summarize, not plagiarize.” I’m not 100% satisfied with it, but you can take a look here.
June 12th, 2008 at 8:36 am
I think we’re switching from deep reading to skimming because skimming really is better.
When I read books for learning, I learned the set of ideas and connections that an author has made and chose to write about. When I skim the Internet to learn, I am the one making the connections among hundreds of works, and I am the one building an idea from the best thoughts of a hundred blog posters.
At the very least, it’s made learning more interactive and less about pouring books into a bucket on top of my neck.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I like this discussion! I read the article today and what I got out of it was that the author is questioning how his brain is actually changing due to the use of the Internet and Google. There is much evidence now that what we do does actually physically change the brain (exercise is known to be good for learning and memory, for example).
I think that as this happens, if one wants to be able to retain the skills and attention to reading long passages of text like a 300 page book requires, then one must make a conscious choice to practice and do this activity.
For me personally this is something that I try to do–read books. Yet as a technologist I also use the Internet and encourage its use when appropriate. As I read the article I was reminded of a comment made years ago by David Brancaccio when he was the host of NPRs “Marketplace.” He said something about the fact that he enjoyed reading a physical newspaper because it allowed him to skim the articles as he turned the pages. With the Internet, he said, it was too easy to pick and choose only the articles he wanted to read and therefore not see something that he might enjoy as he skimmed with the physical paper. I found the thought interesting and to a large degree I found myself in agreement.
Good article and a good discussion. Thanks for starting this John!
June 17th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I feel that the internet has provided with a more immediate source for information, but in terms of dumbing us down I guess its a matter of taking responsibility in the way we acquire information. I still feel that the invention of the printing press is the foundation of how information became accessible to the masses. If anything the information provides information, facts, figures, opinions et al in a manner that makes it easier to get at when it comes to the Internet. I am off the cross over generation, sandwiched between boomers and Gen X. I find the internet just another tool for knowledge, entertainment and communication. But still nothing beats the turning of a page, the simplistic almost Zen act of holding, reading and absorbing information in a more sensory and tactile manner. Definitely fodder for thought the article though.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
[...] The post I made last week on books, Google making us dumb, and the like, has been a popular meme on the Web, especially so among educators. [...]