Nicholas Carr, who from all appearances seems to be a very smart man has written an article for the Atlantic monthly. In his Article Mr. Carr discusses his fears that his use of the internet, google, etc… are changing how he thinks, altering his very brain chemistry… I think his fears are irrational and I’ll explain why below but for now, follow the link and read Mr. Carr’s essay and then come back.
Interesting, no? Mr. Carr raises several issues, marshals evidence to support it, and ties it all together with a nice reference to one of science fiction’s and hollywood’s most iconic films. In other words a very well written essay. I do have some issues with it though and here is why:
First off I’m wondering how much of Carr’s research was done using Google, Wikipedia, and the system he maligns through out his article? Ad hominen attacks are never appropriate but Carr’s continued use of the internet accurately portrays just how much of a threat he feels it is to his brain structure. I didn’t see anywhere in his essay where he decides that using the internet is too dangerous to use, nor does he call for his readers to change how they interact with the internet so as to curb its malicious influence on thought patterns, nor do any of the people he mentions in the article. Everyone seems to feel that the internet is changing them but none of them seems to be doing anything about it. If the threat was there, it would be easy enough to shut the computer down and pick up a magazine or book, or go to the library and immerse yourself in the stacks doing research. In fact that is the solution to the problem Carr poses on his article. If the internet has changed how you think by using it in the past ten years, then it stands to reason not using the internet as a resource will help it revert back. He touts throughout the elasticity of the brain to do just this and I quote, “The human brain is almost infinitely malleable…As people’s minds become attuned… Far-reaching effects on cognition…” This elasticity is then Carr’s salvation, stop using the internet and your mind will re-shape itself to whatever form you’d prefer it to.
Second, Carr mentions no hard evidence that the Internet is changing how he thinks. He quotes his own experiences and those of friends and associates. Anecdotes are all well but they can’t prove (or disprove) anything. Carr himself acknowledges this, but then immediately introduces additional anecdotes (Nietzsche) and unrelated studies, in the hopes that his reader will blindly accept their relevancy. He touts a British study that reports people’s browsing histories on-line, making sure to point out how people jump from place to place and rarely read entire articles or sections. This is a fascinating study of how people browse certain sites, but it doesn’t tell us anything about how they read books, or think in general. Carr then quotes a psychologist who worries that our on-line habits might be spilling over into the real world and effecting how we think, sadly he doesn’t quote any studies that substantiate that claim. Carr fails to mention if anyone has even begun to study this field at all. His anecdotes might play on my emotions but I see no need to worry until hard evidence is brought to my attention. Worse, he doesn’t bring forth any evidence to support his claim that the old way of reading books, newspapers, articles, etc… is in any way different from, and superior to how we read the internet. He talks of “deep” reading and the contemplation that immersion in a book creates but never proves that such deepness exists, it is merely assumed.
Thirdly I feel Carr’s argument is just a small part of a greater battle “raging” in academia and the halls of power right now. This is the age old battle of the old against the new, the haves against the have-nots, and power elites versus self educated amateur. The real fear here is not that the internet is changing how we think; it is that the internet is eroding traditional authority. Carr’s fails to directly address this issue, he in fact seems conflicted. He recognizes that through-out history as new ideas, technologies (writing, printing) are introduced they’ve had their critics, that these critics have largely been right but things still turned out okay, even better. I don’t know what Carr is trying to say here except that, he doesn’t quite know what it is he is arguing against (or for), and that I should be skeptical of his claims. Carr as a member of that traditional authority but part of it’s liberal wing wants to seem like he is okay with the changes occurring around him (the egalitarianization of society/academia/culture/etc. by the internet), but at the same time wanting to retain the aura of authority his position in the older hierarchy gives him.
In the end it seems that Carr raises an issue that bothers him only slightly. He worries that he and we, as a collective, might be losing something with the coming of the supremacy of the internet. He doesn’t seem to care enough to do anything about it though, even when the answer is as simple as turning the computer off and picking up a book.
I’ve sent the above comments to the author himself and other intellectuals who cover this field. I will also be forwarding them on to the Editors at the Atlantic as well, if I’m lucky they’ll find my comments insightful enough to print them, which wouldn’t hurt my career in anyway. I encourage you to read Mr. Carr’s piece and my reaction to it and then leave your comments below.
I read both his article and your response. To be honest, I found him quite whiny. If you’re concerned about how your brain is functioning because of what appears to be over use of the internet, turn off your computer. If your attention span seems to be driven to distraction by something, perhaps-shocker-it isn’t particularly exciting reading. After well over 20 years of using and abusing computers and the internets, my library and my little book problem shows no sign of abating. In fact, thanks to Amazon, it’s making it worse.
Great review, Jon. I liked your assessment. I added some thoughts to yours:
Unfortunately, the honest truth is that the human mind did not evolve in a vacuum, prepared to take one itemized piece of environmental information at a time. We evolved to survive, seeking out food and shelter from scant environmental intuition, amidst the ever present threat of death from competitors and predators. In all reality, our minds are programmed to think rapidly and interconnectivity. We evolved to intuit and assess on-the-fly; it is the limitation of technology that has historically slowed down our network communication capabilities, which are now beginning to be more fully harnessed.
Besides, it seems the issue being discussed here is about depth vs breadth of thought. Up til now breadth has been something that was limited to those capable of obtaining years of training (authority), while nearly anyone could pursue a depth of understanding in *one* specific field. A depth of understanding is still essential, and easier to obtain, and now so is a breadth of comprehension. It definitely breaks down the barriers of authority – anyone can be an authority now.
Throwing in the bit about man vs. the system smacks of Luddite-ish poisoning the well, since systematization of humanity is completely not the issue when it comes to a new medium for disseminating information – comparing industrialization with the internet is a poor analogy indeed.
If you want to read a freaking book – go do it.
I took Carr’s article more as intellectual musing than as criticism; the musings of a person who has had to adapt to technology rather than interact with it as a native. I felt his comparisons with Plato and Squarciafico were more self-reflexive; a means to recognize and state his acknowledgment of his resistance to change.
Carr’s lament about “quiet spaces now filled with content” is poignant but somewhat shortsighted. If he’s afraid of losing those quiet spaces he needs to take time to ensure he has them. Nevertheless, I have worked around enough people in the entertainment industry to observe that the young and the “early adapters” have lost the ability and inclination to create those “quiet spaces”.
Secondly, I have to agree with Carr’s fears about the internet & information technology becoming a “crutch” on which one rests one’s intellect. I have never been so good at telling time as when I did not wear a watch. Maybe I’ve read Frank Herbert too many times, but thoughts of the Butlerian Jihad and its ultimate commandment come to mind: “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of the human mind.” I found that realm of science fiction fascinating because it insisted upon the development of the human mind as both a means of freeing the intellect and evolving the species.
Nevertheless, I agree with you that Carr’s essay feels more than a bit masturbatory. He muses about his fears and observes the changes within himself and within society, but lacks the will to do anything about it.
Thanks !