Category: politics

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.