The internet damages us, people have lost their ability to read full articles and don’t fully understand what they read and because of this,our natural intelligence will never be the same with the internet around, thinking for us.
Moreover, Carr’s article mentions that by using technology of any kind, users tend to embody the characteristics stimulated by that technology. He says that given that the Internet processes information almost immediately, users will tend to value immediacy. To explain, Carr gives the example of a friend of his named Scott Karp who was a literary major on college and who used to be an avid book reader. However, since the arrival of the Internet, Karp skim articles online because he could no longer read as much as he used too. He cannot pay attention and absorb long texts ever since he read online articles. Internet...
The internet might not only be affecting social abilities, but also cognitive abilities. According to Descartes, what determines ones existence is cognition, and thinking is considered identity. His famous quote was not “I google therefore, I am.” An argument can be made about how creativity is being effected. The internet is not only a place where people find new friends, but also information. It is possible that we have access to too much information. The problem with the internet becoming the main source of information is that we depend on it for simple tasks which one could easily perform on their own with regular practice. The other problem is knowledge, people are looking to google where there is access to the same pool of knowledge rather than being creative and coming up with their own ideas and solutions.
Every day there is some new technological advancement making its way into the world in an attempt to make life easier for people. In the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, author Nicholas Carr explains his thoughts on how he believes the internet is running the risk of making people full of artificial knowledge. Carr begins by explaining how he feels that the web is causing his focus issues, how he can no longer be completely immersed in a book, and the reason why he gets fidgety while reading. He then goes on to talk about how his life is surrounded by the internet and how that is the blame for the issues he has towards not being able to stay connected to a text; but at the same time says how and why the web has been a ‘godsend’ because he is a writer. In an attempt to draw the reader in, Carr uses a great deal of rhetorical appeals. He compares the differences of the past and the present and how he feels how it has changed not only himself, but others as well and how they are able to comprehend and focus due to the growing nature of the web. While comparing this, he accumulated research from several credited writers who feel the same way he does about the effects of the web.
...the internet is more of a blessing with it a whole lot of advantages. However, more than once it has proven to have with itself its own package of evils. Writer after writer, they have given scathing reports as to the way it has affected the society’s behavior in more than one negative way. It is thus safe that the society as we know it today could easily have had its attributes to internet be they positive or negative aspects. What thus is reality is that the internet can only be deemed as a necessary evil and as such, despite its wide usage, man and the society at large should be vigilant not to let off their guard on the negative usage of the internet.
According to www.telegraph.co.uk, “[y]oung people aged between 16 and 24 spend more than 27 hours a week on the internet.” Certainly this much internet usage would have an effect on someone. What exactly is the effect of using the internet too much? Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” argues that we are too reliant on the internet and it is making the us dim-witted and shortens our attention span. While Clive Thompson’s article “Smarter than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better” states that technology is not only a collection of knowledge, it also a method of sharing and recording our own knowledge. I fall between both Carr and Thompson. I agree with car on his points of us being too reliant on the internet but disagree when he states that it is making us less intelligent. Meanwhile, I also support Thompson’s statement that the internet allows us to assimilate vast amounts of knowledge but disagree with his opinion on how we should be reliant on
These two articles are similar in the sense that they agree that the internet and computational objects are reshaping our brain’s structure by changing our neural circuit. By using examples from their personal experiences to identify a trend in technology use, the authors illustrate that the more we bury ourselves in technology the more we are unable to understand material which leads to loss of concentration and the ability to think for ourselves. As an author, Carr finds the internet a beneficial tool, but it’s having a bad effect on his concentration span. Carr points this out by stating “Immersing myself in a book or lengthy article used to be easy, now I get fidgety, lose the thread and begin looking for something else to do” (39). He is no
Knowing that a most of his audience spends a majority of their time on the web; Carr concedes by admitting to his audience that, “ For more than a decade now, [he has] been spending a lot of time online” (Carr 92) and that the internet has been, “ [G]odsend to him as a writer ” (Carr 92) as he can now complete, “ Research that once required day in the stacks of periodicals rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes”(Carr 92). By conceding that the internet is amazing, he is not alienating a large part of his audience who believe the internet is a “Godsend”(Carr 92). Furthermore, Jay Heinrichs ( an author of THANK YOU FOR ARGUING) states, “ In rhetoric, a sterling reputation is more than just good; it’s persuasive (Heinrichs 44). It is important for Carr to come off as a trustworthy individual, and by conceding to the internet being amazing, he has done that. Throughout the article, Carr refers to the research that has found the same finding as Carr’s beliefs; that being the internet is affecting our cognitive ability. He cites, “[L]ong-term neurological and physiological experiments that will provide a definite picture of how the internet use is affecting our cognition”(Carr 93). He goes on to cite international studies from the U.K educational consortium who have observed, “ a form of skimming activity”(Carr 93) and the users are “ [H]opping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they’d already visited” (Carr 93) and to Carr, this type of activity is changing they way our brains function. Carr’s appeal to ethos is done through him conceding, and the vast research he cites. By him conceding his trustworthiness is established as he shows the reader he shares the same view; forcing the reader to take Carr's argument to heart. By Carr citing ongoing multinational research, his credibility is established as he has done the work necessary to validate his argument;
Carr discusses the effects that the Internet has on our minds and the way we think, as well as the way media has changed. Our minds no longer focus. When in conversation with people we are constantly distracted by the technological advances our era has brought. Text messages, emails, pop culture drama has all taken over thoughts.
For example, it has become a new medium for play and entertainment for children, but is this a healthy alternative to older forms of play? And what about parents who use technology just to keep their kids quite? As with all new technologies, there are pros and cons. Although, it is unfair to blame a technology because of the content people put on it. Greenfield, Patricia, and Zheng Yan put it best when they say, “Just as we cannot ask whether a knife is inherently good or bad, we cannot ask whether the Internet is good or bad; we can simply document how it is used.” So, as much as some may blame the Internet for its problems, the real war is against the substance within the Internet (Greenfield, Patricia, and Zheng Yan 390-93). And thus comes the main argument against the Internet, is the composition of the Internet harmful to