There’s a very interesting article in the current Atlantic Monthly written by Nicholas Carr called, and asking, “Is Google making us stupid?” The author, and, presumably, we the reader, could once wade through large pieces of writing, from novels to long-form articles with ease. Concentration was a virtue and a captured commodity. But we have lost our way. Google, Yahoo, the Internet, etc., have made undivided focus frustratingly difficult. To be sure, it has made some things go a lot smoother as well.
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.
We’ve gained something, it’s undeniable. But we’ve lost another. Carr on brain plasticity:
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.”
It has the ability to reprogram itself, and become reprogrammed within altered environments. Evolution. We spend a considerable amount of time in an information network that values efficiency and immediacy above depth. This will have an effect on us, our minds.
Carr intimates a relationship among concentration, deep thinking, and, even, humanity. Can the way we read, play, chat, and become distracted, online really erode all that?
From The Beatles’ “I’m only Sleeping”:
Everybody seems to think I'm lazy
I don't mind, I think they're crazy
Running everywhere at such a speed
Till they find, there's no need
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is something I worry about. I don't worry so much about our ability to read novels, philosophy, &c; rather, I worry about how this might affect human communication and, ultimately, relationships.
With fewer face-to-face meetings, we might lose the opportunity to pick up on the subtle cues that only an in-person conversation can produce. And so we might become less empathatic (because how will we know the others' feelings?) and find ourselves robbed of a beautiful, ennobling, art.
But I wonder how we will adapt to such technological changes to our forms of communication. Is it necessarily for the worst? Can we adapt in such a way that allows us to retain subtleties and complexities in communication?
Right. I mean, it's entirely possible that things will evolve in a neutral or even positive way, but there are no guarantees, are there?
I think your observation about empathy is incisive. I suppose I'd add that written communication takes a long time, and if we're doing more and more of it, that means we're spending more and more time communicating with less actual communication to show for it.
Then what does it mean to communicate? Are you suggesting words are not enough; that, if we want anything to show for all this communicating, we'd better get in front of one another and let those mirror-neurons do their job?
As you said, nothing's guaranteed. We're remarkably good at adapting to new, and unexpected environments. Perhaps taking us out of the one-on-one, where discussion is relatively rapid and unrelenting, will give us the space for serious reflection and the time to produce the thoughtful and measured responses that only solitude can bring. We might be communicating less, but better.
Hmm. Point taken.
Post a Comment