Nicholas Carr is worried. Very, very worried. In his essay, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Carr observes that his and others' ability to concentrate -- to read and think deeply and at length -- has been damaged by his heavy use of the Internet. He argues that the very medium of the Internet -- the way it works, and the way it demands that we use it -- is responsible for this damage. According to Carr, the digital era has decreased our mental capacity, and this is a bad thing, socially speaking.
Andrew Sullivan, on the other hand, thinks the Internet has been a hugely liberating force for writers. While he makes a point of discussing blogging's disadvantages (especially when compared with the professional standards of print journalism), he celebrates blogging's immediacy -- the ways in which the new medium allows all sorts of people to "write out loud."
Which writer do you agree with, Carr or Sullivan? Or both? Or neither? And why? Do you think there's anything that their arguments overlook or just plain get wrong?
I'm eager to hear what you think.
I can't say that I fully agree with either one, but I'm leaning more towards Sullivan. Each writer has their points, slightly counteracting one another, but still true at both angles. I believe Carr is stating that the internet is becoming the main way of communication. While I'm not sure if I see this as a bad thing, it is true. School, work, and socializing has become reliant upon the internet. I think it's neccessary, though, because of the way technology is coming about. I do believe, however, there is such a thing as over-use and over-reliance. This may become a problem as more and more junk is posted on the internet, making it's reliance unreliable. Too much internet can be a bad thing. It can create chaos and maybe too much convenience. Being unaware of some exact points for a short time is ok with me, vs. knowing immediately.
ReplyDeleteSullivan has good points, too. The internet is a good way for writers to post raw, unscripted thought. Something that can be posted on a whim and not have gone through several edits and copies to make it reader friendly. Work written in a time of real emotion can't be replicated after the fact as well as in the moment. Plus, readers can instantly communicate with the writer. Real readers, not just approved names that we list for popularity reasons. It's the real readers that I'd be more concerned about.
In a way I agree with Blair because I see Carr's point on how people and no longer really into sitting down with a long reading and just reading it completely through. I struggle with that just like many others do. I do like where Sullivan is going though with the immediate aspect of blogging. As he states it gives them a kind of advantage over printed press because they can get their ideas out to others faster and even if they are wrong someone will point it out and everyone can benefit from the blog. With printed press there are complaints or things that never get tested because of how America is lazy and won't take the time to send a letter into the paper about it.
ReplyDeleteOverall I feel internet might be to powerful in todays world but I just don't enjoy sitting and doing long readings out of books anymore.
I agree with some of Carr's points, but I think he missed a lot of the things that the internet has to offer for writers. These are the things that Sullivan touched on.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that I agree with Carr on is that our ways of taking in information are changing a lot. I can see it in the way that I think, and in the ways that other people act when reading.
But it's not like we have to choose between the internet and books. I enjoy both of them. The internet is a great way to gather information quickly and efficiently, and books are good for sitting down and contemplating one subject for long periods of time.
Also, the internet has made it much harder for people's voices to be censored. I think that's one of the best things to happen to writing in a long time.
After reading both of these articles and comparing them a little bit I would have to agree with both of them. They both have very valid points and arguments.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carr in that the internet is becoming a scary place but yet the fact remains, using the internet is a choice. It is hard for me to get some things I read online because of how long it is but I still enjoy sitting down and reading a book of my choice with no problem. I think Carr didn't do as good of a job convincing his audience of this major issue as Sullivan did. Sullivan knew what he was talking about and he knew how to do it in detail. After all, he was around when the blog was invented. Carr weakened his essay when he said "Maybe I'm just a worry wart". This made the essay less intense by far.
Sullivan's essay was definitely better but I still agree with both of them.
I can see both sides of the argument. However I do feel that technology is begining to go to far in some areas. So Carr has the right to worry a little bit.
ReplyDeleteRyan, what do you mean when you say, "too far"? Where would you draw the line?
ReplyDeletei have to agree with Ryan. i see both sides of the argument and they are both legitamate(sp). But at the same time, i think that google and even the internet in general is one day going to take over our lives. one day, everything will be so impersonal and withdrawn. with the age of "Facebook" it has already begun. lets just hope it wont sprial out of control.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that i agree with both essays but more-so with Sullivan.
ReplyDeleteCarr tried to say that the internet has changed people so much so that now people can not simply sit down and read for hours at a time, yet constantly i hear of, or see myself, people sitting in front of their computers for hours at a time reading a blog they are a fan of, or Texts From Last Night, or even just a newsfeed on Facebook. people do still read for extended periods at a time, weather it is legitimate and important, that can only be determined by the reader themselves.
Personally, i hate reading for a long time when it is on the internet. the screen makes it difficult and after a while it hurts my eyes so i avoid it. i try to keep my internet reading to a minimum, but again, that is just me.
I agree with Cassie. I have heard of people (including myself) reading both online and offline for long periods of time. Of course I don't remember a time when there wasn't internet so I could be wrong, but I think that the benefits the internet has brought us, surpasses the disadvantages. People can instantly access information, news and communicate with friends and family. I think this is important because without this information, that is from all over the world coming in through a source that isn't regulated, everyone would be ignorant of what is going on in their country and the world.
ReplyDeleteI just think it's funny that both actually acknowledge how open to criticism and attack your writing is online, but the pro-blogging essay is the only one to straight-out say it. Carr on the other hand does use the "cover your ass" technique to sort of make that potential attack less convenient. Because you know... why beat someone over the head with something they already seem to understand? Little thing, yeah.
ReplyDeleteI guess I also agree with points from both. The rewiring of the brain is interesting. For the majority of things though, I think it's really just making it easier to be lazy and still competent. Like he said, a day's worth of travel, searching and pouring over texts can now be cut down to minutes. Feels like it's mostly lowering the bar if anything.
It does open up a whole new spam gate, but the development speed of advertisement feels pretty exponential anyway. You’re playing sharks and minnows with commercials. Any new media created with intent to dodge it will most likely become the pathway FOR it, and probably faster than the last. Not that I enjoy having my time taken up by useless information, but it really is outweighed by the useful stuff. There’s an unimaginable amount of stuff omitted from TV, newspapers, magazines and books, and it’s not just second opinions: it’s entire events. Limited space, editor bias, personal agenda, and low funds can pretty much now be completely walked around if you just find the right outlet.
Oh, and… Personally, I’m still able to sit for hours on end and read, write or draw, but I’ll admit access to the internet has stalled many projects before.
I see both sides of the argument but I agree more with Sullivan. The main reason I agree with Sullivan is because Internet is technology and and without technology, the human race would not be what it is today. Yes, there are people out there who use technology wrong, but there will always be those people.
ReplyDeleteJohn Richardson
i agree with both of them, However i agree more with Sullivan. The internet is a great thing and we can learn so much more from it, expand our horizons and learn multiple things at once. Carr is right in some aspects though, i think we as people have become lazier at getting knowledge but we as people have become more advanced from the use of internet and technology.
ReplyDeleteEmily Roemerman
I more so see Sullivan side than Carr. I do not see how Google is making anyone unintelligent. Google gives people the tools and opportunities to progress.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sullivan and disagree with Carr. I think Sullivan has a point about how blogs are good because of their instant feedback but they can be bad because what you read might not be the truth and hasn't had its facts checked. I don't think Carr's point is valid when he says that people can't think deeply anymore because of the internet. I think that if people want to think deeply about a subject then they can stop and think about it without getting distracted by the internet.
ReplyDeleteNathan
I agree with Sullivan. I don't think what Carr said is a liable statement. If people are no longer able to sit down and read a long essay or book then they are taking advantage of the internet. The internet is simply a tool to help us do better and gain information quickly. Without the internet we would be very obsolete as a society. I agree with one of the posts above: We still read a lot. Wether it is reading Facebook posts or funny websites, we are still reading. Wether or not what we are reading is good for our brain, I'm not sure.
ReplyDeletelike most of us...i can see both sides but more with sullivan. in a way i see carrs side on the internet is going to far in a way...? not necessarily making us stupid but some things...we just dont need. but google has helped in many ways. like me i go on it if i have just simple questions and it always has an answer. the internet is just like a tool...its like if there is no one to answer your questions....than go ask google!
ReplyDeleteI don't think what Carr said is really a liable statement. He made a lot of meaningless statements.I agreed with Sullivan more because he used more modern examples. I don't think that Google is making us stupid, instead I think it is increasing are thought process, and causes us to read more.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that most people agree with Sullivan more than Carr. Maybe it's the way they presented their arguments and how much the reader is persuaded. I think most people take advantage of technology and it negatively affects education and communication.
ReplyDelete