Veronica Flores May 11th, 2016 Professor Schultz WR 121 TR
There is a great deal of questioning to what degree has technology influenced our efficiency in our own critical thinking. According to Nicholas Carr in his article “is google making us stupid”, he agrees that ones use in technology has decreased our critical thinking capacity. On the other hand, the article “Playing Around with Identity” by Tamara Wendell and Anthony Beavers argue that it has actually increased our critical thinking capacity. In the mentioning of thesis, Carr states that critical thinking in the form of deep intellect is slowly being turned off in out minds due to technology and its influences. One influence is that it has increased peoples focus so they are easily
…show more content…
distracted because we expect the information to process at the same rate as the internet does. For this very reason, the internet and everything that comes with us has made us lazy intellectuality speaking. Both Wendell and Beavers take a different approach and seek the fruits of the cyber world. In a very short words that Plato once said “Life must be lived as play” in which Wendell and Beavers used this as their cornerstone to build their argument. According to Wendell and Beavers, the ability to test out different personas helps our critical thinking grow. In the terms of introduction, both mention movies that tie in with their thesis. Car used the 2001 film Space Odyssey and used a dramatic quote of an artificial intelligence entity taking over a human mind. “I can feel it” was the quote use in which Carr made use of it to transition into his argument in an expensive matter. Wendell and Beavers also used a movie reference, but instead of quoting the movie, they used the plotline as an alternative to introduce their thesis. They used Groundhogs Day as a keystone example of how playing around and tailoring certain aspects of ones being can led to critical thinking development.
Carr uses the example of Friedrich Nietzsche whom transfer from pen and paper to a typewriter. Many notice that Nietzsche’s writing style had also changed, reason being that “our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.” Nietzsche explains. It is as though our own critical thinking is malleable in accordance to technology. “They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought.”, Carr states as he correlates that our own innocent use of technology is our own waterloo, for it disables us of capacity to formulate our own thoughts. However, Wendell and Beavers beg to differ, however they argue a different stand point. Wendell and Beavers introduce the idea that the ability to use social media as a platform of cognitive stimulation, “There is a well-established body of evidence supporting the correlation between cognitive competence and quality pretend-play.”, the essay argues. Wendell and beavers argue that the simple access to try out different modes of self presentation are properly inhibited on Facebook, fore it “must fit somewhat with what I already am because my ‘friends’ are present to ‘call me out’ if I try to pass myself off as someone too different from whom they perceive me to be.” The supporting details, for the most part, in Wendell and Beavers’ analysis are draw from personal experiment and formatted in a way to at some degree present it in a credible way. This is also true when it comes to Car’s piece, as Carr also uses his own experience as the foundation of his own argument of the levels of toxicity technology has on our critical thinking, “my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages.” Carr explicates his concern. Both sides of the argument draw from first based ideals and it gives an intimate touch between the at hour and the reader. It gives the
reader a personal insight in the authors argument and it allows for the reader to connect emotionally to the authors argument. An emotional argument is what drives the reader to look beyond scientific facts and forces the reader to think of weather they agree with the author or not. To conclude the essays, Carr uses a bookend by using Space Odyssey once again, helping draw the parallels of artificial intelligence replacing human critical thinking. Wendell and Beavers draw their conclusion by quoting Plato, which also draw the line for their argument of cognitive stimulation via play.
In the article “Clive Thompson on the New Literacy,” writer Clive Thompson argues that the widespread use of technology and social media does not make kids illiterate and unable to form coherent sentences, but instead, keeps them actively writing and learning. Thompson’s article is based off of a study done by Andrea Lunsford, a writing professor at Stanford University. Thompson agrees with Lunsford that the use of social media and the Internet allow students to be creative and get better at writing. In his article, Thompson quotes John Sutherland, an English professor at University College of London, to inform the audience of the opposite side of the argument. He states, “Facebook encourages narcissistic blabbering, video and PowerPoint have
Author Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google making us Stupid,” discusses how the use of the computer affects our thought process. Carr starts out talking about his own experience as a writer and how he felt like “something had been tinkering with his brain, remapping his neural circuitry and reprogramming his memory”(313). Basically, he is acknowledging that since he started using the Internet his research techniques have changed. Carr believes that before he would immerse himself in books, lengthy articles and long stretches of prose allowing his mind to get caught up in the narrative or the
The author attempts to build a focus around the importance preserving our mind, he writes, “But it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking—perhaps a new sense of the self. ‘We are not what we read…. We are how we read’ (395). Provided that Carr focuses on the safeguarding of our minds his intentions are to appeal into an individual’s emotion and bring them to the conclusion that if we continue to let the internet distract us we will lose our self’s. He recognizes that when speaking of an individual’s self they are mindfully more open to accepting what you tell them and he uses this as another one of his writing strategies. Nicholas Carr writes, “As we are drained of our ‘inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance,’ Foreman concluded, we risk turning into ‘pancake people—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.”’ (399) by adding this statement within the essay, he is drastically appealing to a reader’s emotion. The conclusion drawn from this claim triggers the reader’s need to defend their identity consequently these emotions triggered by possibilities help the reader give into the authors argument. The author appeals to the audience’s emotion by encompassing their sense of true self and
Throughout our everyday lives whether we think about it or not. Computers and technology are and have been an integral part of our lives. Computers and technology assist us with so much, such as the way we drive and the way we learn. We no longer have to deal with the hassle of driving stick and we no longer have to be in a physical classroom with the advent of online education. In Clive Thompsons’ essay “Smarter than you think how technology is changing our minds for the better,” he discusses how the ever changing capacity of technology improves the mental cognition of human beings.
In The Shallows by Nicholas Carr, he asserts that the evolution of information and communication technology (ICTs) is having a detrimental impact on our brains despite the many benefits and advances we have made with it. His main focus is on the internet which he commonly refers to as the “universal medium” (92). Carr presents a very detailed but biased argument in which he views the internet and other technologies as the adversary of critical thinking and progress. To Carr, we are sacrificing our ability to think logically because we are choosing the simpler way to gain knowledge.
Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stupid” and Sherry Turkle’s “How Computers Change the Way We Think” both discuss the influence of technology to their own understanding and perspective. The first work by Nicholas Carr is about the impact technology has on his mind. He is skeptical about the effect it could cause in the long term of it. He gives credible facts and studies done to prove his point. While Sherry Turkle’s work gives a broad idea of the impact of technology has caused through the years. She talks about the advances in technology and how it is changing how people communicate, learn and think. In both works “Is Google Making Us Stupid” and “How Computers Change the Way We Think” the authors present
Trying to reflect the fears instilled in himself through comparison to an unrealistic movie. I believe that the internet hasn’t changed everyone’s the way the he says its changed his. I think that people who were born into the world of technology have the ability to analyze into a deeper thought what is needed and skim for instant answer when it’s not needed. On the other side those whom have been forced to adapt to it, such as Carr, find themselves losing abilities they once relied on because they were taught growing up to do both things. Now that the internet has forced them to adapt to it, they can’t focus of doing both types of thinking. The complexity of our minds is deep and that can’t be made shallow by the ability to get instant gratification of information. We simply begin to rule out unimportant things, once the important thing is found then it can be analyzed. Although Carr says his mind isn’t going as far as it used to, clearly that’s exactly what he did in this essay. He used the older “traditional way” of over-analyzing unnecessary things to reach a point that ends up being moot. Clearly, his use of logos, ethos and pathos, although present were not enough to prove his opinion to be
The internet is our conduit for accessing a wide variety of information. In his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” Nicholas Carr discusses how the use of the internet affects our thought process in being unable to focus on books or longer pieces of writing. The author feels that “someone, or something, has been tinkering with [his] brain” over the past few years (Carr 731). While he was easily able to delve into books and longer articles, Carr noticed a change in his research techniques after starting to use the internet. He found that his “concentration often [started] to drift after two or three pages” and it was a struggle to go back to the text (Carr 732). His assertion is that the neural circuits in his brain have changed as a result of surfing endlessly on the internet doing research. He supports this statement by explaining how his fellow writers have had similar experiences in being unable to maintain their concentrations. In analyzing Carr’s argument, I disagree that the internet is slowly degrading our capacity for deep reading and thinking, thereby making us dumber. The Web and Google, indeed, are making us smarter by allowing us access to information through a rapid exchange of ideas and promoting the creativity and individualization of learning.
First Carr tells us about Friedrich Nietzsche, “His vision was failing, and keeping his eyes focused on a page had become exhausting and painful...The typewriter rescued him.” (Carr 318). Carr claims that the typewriter changed his writing style, but having a slightly different style does not take away from the fact that Nietzsche can still put his ideas onto paper. If Nietzsche had not bought the typewriter then he would not be able to write anymore, so clearly any small downside of the typewriter is outweighed by the the typewriter allowing Nietzsche to continue writing. Carr also claims at one point that the internet uses “a style that puts ‘efficiency’ and ‘immediacy’ above all else” (Carr 317). Carr argues that the efficiency and immediacy of the internet limits our ability for deep reading. Thompson claims that “Every new tool shapes the way we think, as well as what we think about” (Thompson 348). Every tool humans have ever created has shaped our brains, so we should not be scared that the internet is changing the way that we think. Especially considering it is causing us to think and learn more
I’m scrolling through the articles on Snapchat and find my way across one with an intriguing title, I instantly tap on it. I begin to scroll further down only to find myself going through extensive paragraphs of information and suddenly this article that seemed so interesting became a bore. In Nicholas G. Carr’s novel, The Shallows, he argues the internet is creating more problems to us humans than actual benefits. Our social skills are starting to lack and our interaction with technology is beginning to heighten. Humans contemplative skills are slowly fading away due to our reliance on the internet to solve our problems. Technology is inevitable by humans, seeing that individuals use it in their everyday lives. Unfortunately, this is a problem considering the use of high-tech gadgets decrease in one’s capacity for concentration, contemplation, and personal memory.
Humans are becoming more technologically-efficient every day. New inventions and innovations are constantly being made. The Internet is becoming more “reliable” every day. However, how much do we really get from the constant advancement of Internet use and smarter technology? Should we look at their contributions to the world as a benefactor or a curse? The common effect of “artificial intelligence” in the technology we use every day is examined by two brilliant authors, Nicholas Carr and Jamias Cascio. In Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, he explains the effects of the Internet and technology in our society and claims that the overuse of technology is dangerous and can affect how our mind operates. Jamias Cascio, on the other hand, uses his article “Get Smarter” to show the positive effects of technology in our constantly adaptive society claims that technology may just be making our society smarter and more efficient. While Carr and Cascio both use the claim of cause in their articles to provide valid points on how technology affects our society, Carr’s article proves to be more effective because it focuses on skeptical-based evidence and uses a variety of appeals and proofs.
However, Carr and Turkle both agree that technology has done good, but it has come at the cost of our ability to think critically. In the two articles, both authors heavily emphasize the negative effects of computer technology on how it is diminishing human cognition and the ability to process information.
In today’s society many technological advances have contributed to advanced communication. While these are advantageous and can improve communication across the globe, they have become a hindrance to critical thinking. With the advancement of technology throughout the world human beings are able to think less while still “functioning.” Literacy is thrown to the wayside and texting “lingo” runs rampant. Why read a book when you can watch the movie? Students are becoming less interested in language, reading, and writing and more involved with surfing the web for answers. This shift in the value of literacy opens the world up to many dangers that if not confronted and demolished could lead to a society unable to think for themselves.
If only my local library could hold the vast quantity of information that my hand held smart phone does. Carr insinuates that Google (and the internet) is making us stupid. I say they are making us lazy. In “Is Google Making Us Stupid” by Nicholas Carr informatively states that with the advancement of technology, Google search engine, and the internet we are become more distracted—with all the different forms of flash media, the amount of hyper-links after hyper-link after hyper-links, and clickable adds-- in turn we are doing less critical reading by way of the internet as opposed to a printed book. Being able to glance over several articles in hour’s verses days looking through books; being able to jump from link to link in order to get the information you need, never looking at the same page twice has decrease out deep thinking and reading skills. Now days, all forms of reading, e.g. newspaper, magazine, etc. are small amount of reading to get the main idea of what’s going on and if you would like more information you will have to go to another page to do so. In the end, C...
The internet is shaping the way we think in more ways than one, and according to Carr (2008), it is suggests that the internet can lead to intellectual laziness. Depending on the internet as a source for information leads to an artificial intelligence. Carr also believes the media is always shaping how we think Carr (2008). Although Carr might not be the most credible due to his augment relying mostly on testimonial evidence, he has a good point. Imagine for a moment sitting in a class room and a professor asks a question. Some students will be right, and others will be wrong which leads to an opportunity for learning. However, if every student were to google the answer to that question each and every student would be correct. See the problem? With reliant use of the internet for information there is no room for creativity or learning.