Rhetorical Analysis Of Nicholas Carr's Is Google Making USupid

Anecdotes have become very influential in the forming of opinions. We often base our decisions off customer reviews or personal recommendations, rather than product labels or factual records. Though it is still important to cumulate and explore the proper avenues of information, it can be challenging to decipher between quantitative and qualitative data these days. Nicholas Carr finds an effective balance of anecdote and research in his essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” He begins to illustrate his theory to the reader by starting off with a scene from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey where a supercomputer nearly kills a man. To accurately assess whether this connection is effectively executed, we must analyze the relationship between

his stories and citations, figure out which is concrete and which is supporting, and finally testify to the scientific studies or historical cases Carr cites.
When carefully collected and sensibly analyzed, especially in correlation with proven statistics, anecdotes can be a valuable source in providing helpful insight of a given phenomenon. Ironically, Carr’s essay is “systematically” organized. In his subtle efforts to stray the audience from any preconceived notions, he utilizes individual accounts preliminary to create a bias perception. Carr uses anecdotes, like they often are, as a familiar starting place for hypothesis, that would ultimately produce structural evidence supporting his initial thoughts. His claim that the internet has affected how we as human beings process information might be a little far-fetched, but after establishing credibility of this problem and examining the causes behind it, the only logical conclusion to draw from this essay is that, he may have a point.
Rhetorical strategy is very prevalent in Carr’s work.

His first few paragraphs relate to the audience with a sense of pathos that continues to reappear as the essay unravels. For example, Carr states, “The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle” (2). This anecdote generates the citation of research when he presents developmental psychologist and author, Mary-anne Wolf. Having written Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. “We are how we read.”, wolf proves to be a reliable source, as well as an accurate development in Carr’s theory. She notes, “When we read online, we tend to become mere decoders of information.” (8). That statement opens a window for Carr to expand on his original idea in saying, “Our ability to interpret text, to make rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.” (8). It’s no secret that Wolf would agree. After just a mere search of her name titles appear such as, The Importance of Deep Reading, Is Online Skimming Hurting Reading comprehension, and How the Internet Is Rewiring Our Brains. If Carr’s theory is in fact correct, it would be fair to assume that most readers would look no further than that for proof. Carr however, omits that Wolf has evolved in her expressions, writing articles such as, Balance Technology and Deep Reading to Create Biliterate Children, Being a Better Online Reader, and Children of the Code. While this doesn’t exactly

penalize Carr’s thoughts or even dispute them, it does offer an alternative perspective that could enlighten the audience in a new way.
From this depiction of Mary-anne Wolf, Carr introduces logos to his essay. After exploring ethos in the tales and trials of his friends and acquaintances- the “literary types”, and some impressively qualified bloggers, he decides subsequently that “Anecdotes alone don’t prove much.” (7). Which is true to a certain magnitude, but not in the extent that anecdotes should be dismissed entirely. The key word in Carr’s statement is “alone”. At some level, statistical and anecdotal evidence are virtually inseparable. Neither can be considered totally devoid of the other. Though it is still important to know the difference between the two. Anyway, as logos becomes dominant, he only cites from works that would effectively concur with his statements. Beginning with another example of technology that rewired our cognitive brain; the clock. He quotes what Joseph weizenbaum observed in his 1976 book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgement to Calculation, “the conception of the world that emerged from widespread use of timekeeping instruments remains an impoverished version of the older one, for it rests on a rejection of those direct experiences that formed the basis for, and indeed constituted, the old reality.” (16). He then adds that, “In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock. From this we can gather that the human brain is ductile and essentially embodies intellectual technologies, but it also seems he is trying to explain how the internet is causing us to lose our natural reading abilities. That would be contradictory however, as he previously quoted Wolf’s statement, “Reading is not an instinctive skill for human beings. We have to teach our minds how to translate the symbolic characters we see into the language we understand.” (9). Could it be that reading is just evolving and our brains are just adapting accordingly?
Carr’s use of scientific studies and historical cases are sufficient, but also perpetually misleading.

Often accounts of the past, fragments of a story, and the author’s own interpretations are the result of personal bias. Carr conducted his research with a specific theory in mind, and made selections based off what aligned with his interests. He cites a recently published study of online reading habits, conducted by scholars from University College London. The shcolars examined computer logs documenting the behavior of visitors to two popular research sites, one operated by the British Library and one by a U.K. educational consortium, that provide access to journal articles, e-books, and other sources of written information. Apparently, they found that people using the sites exhibited, “a form of skimming activity,” hopping from one source to another. He offers that “Sometimes they’d save a long article, but there’s no evidence that they ever went back and actually read it.” (7). He’s implying the opposition, while in fact, if there’s no evidence that they did read it, there’s equally no evidence that they didn’t. Furthermore, after researching the article the actual quotes states, “Academic users have strong consumer instincts and research shows that they will squirrel away content in the form of downloads, especially when there are free offers. In spite of this behavior and the very short session times that we witness, there is no evidence as to the extent to which these

downloads are actually read.” This quote doesn’t inhibit the same basic assumptions that Carr expresses throughout his writing. The actual article doesn’t hold “skimming” in a negative light. Carr is entitled to infer particular facts about the evidence available to him, but it’s unclear if providing the audience with a condensed version of those facts is entirely bias. The way Carr gives meaning to these facts by presenting relations between them is a function of his own creative imagination and not of any statistical sub sequential circumstance whatsoever.
Overall Carr’s considerable tone succeeds to remain impartial as he does address the intimate and delicate bond reading possesses in the mapping of our minds. Evolution in the form of anything, especially technology, is a fragile subject in which most research is evaluated on personal experience. Carr uses anecdotes to establish relativity in the citation of research. He effectively portrays how critical the use of both is in evaluating the bigger picture. After an article with immense research from scholarly and scientific sources, he ends with the same familiar 2001: A Space Odyssey scene that he opened the article with. Having gained a deeper understanding of his theory, the audience is left with a definite appeal to emotion.