Does Google Make Us Stupid - Essay Example

?Does Google Make Us Stupid? ISYS10211 Personal and Professional Development Google is a search engine used in the internet in order to gather information and links on a particular subject matter. Various issues on whether or not it is making people stupid have been raised. This study was able to establish that Google can make people stupid in the sense that it makes them less critical, less able to concentrate, and less able to reach deep reading because of the distraction of the internet. Moreover, it is also reducing people’s memory retention because they know that they can easily ‘Google’ something or retrieve such information via the internet. On the other hand, others argue that Google does not make people stupid, instead, it makes people reach another deeper level of learning, one where they can still apply their analytical and critical abilities, and in the process retain and improve their intellectual abilities. A middle ground to this issue can be reached by retaining the best of both worlds, in allowing the technology to develop, in retaining the deep reading and analytical processes while completing and maintaining intellectual learning. Contents 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 4 2. Brief history of Google.................................................................................................... 4 3. Google is making us stupid: Nicholas Carr discussion................................................... 5 4. Memory retention............................................................................................................ 7 5. Google and the brain........................................................................................................ 8 6. Academic impact of Google............................................................................................ 9 7. Deep reading and Google................................................................................................. 10 8. Google does not make us stupid....................................................................................... 11 9. Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 15 10. Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 16 Reference 1. Introduction The internet has become one of the most pervasive technologies used and enjoyed by almost all people in the planet. It is also a media upon which various technologies, including search engines and social networking sites are being borne and developed. Google is one of these technologies. It is a search engine which was established in order to browse through the internet and search for information and for links into the different available interactions in the electronic world. The ease upon which information has been made available through Google has been a source of controversy among researchers and intellectuals, arguing that it is a technology which has now made people stupid. However, other intellectuals would also argue in the opposite direction, proclaiming that Google does not make people, stupid; instead, it makes them smart and more imaginative in their knowledge about and of the world. This study shall discuss whether or not Google makes people stupid. First, a brief description of Google shall be introduced in this paper. Second, an analysis of the reasons why Google is making us stupid shall be presented. Third, an analysis of the reasons why Google is not making us stupid shall also be presented. Fourth, a position on this issue shall be discussed based on an analysis of the previous discussions and arguments. Lastly, a conclusion and summary shall end this discussion. Body 2. Brief history of Google In 1996, Stanford University graduate students Larry Page and Sergey Brin established their search engine known as ‘BackRub.” This search engine used various links to establish the importance of distinct web pages (Google, n.d). In 1998, they finally formalized their work into what would now be known as Google. This company has since grown significantly. It is now available in different languages, it has various advertisements and web applications including Google Books, Google Scholar, Google Maps, Google Images, Google Mail, among others. It is primarily a search engine which compiles the links from different places in the web for easy access and availability. 3. Google is making us stupid: Nicholas Carr discussion In Nicholas Carr’s (2008) discussion in his article “Is Google making us stupid?” he narrates how the initiative of deep and concentrated reading has lost somehow become a less common occurrence for him. Concentrated and long hours of reading have become interrupted by other distractions and long lines of prose seem to inspire boredom or mental wanderings (Carr, 2008). He attributes this phenomenon to the fact that for many years now since the birth of the internet, he has spent a lot of time searching online and surfing through the internet superhighway. He posits that, being a writer, the internet has become a wealthy source of data and information and he could accomplish so much more in a few minutes in terms of research, as opposed to pouring over books and journals in the library for long hours, even days. Simple and specific data can be reviewed within a few minutes and utilized without having to read an entire book or article (Carr, 2008). In the process of researching and writing, he could distract himself with what is in the internet, surfing through more data, watching videos, writing blogs, and updating one’s Facebook status. Carr (2008) admits that the internet has become a venue for him to gain as much information as he can, and to immediately access such data without losing much time and without making much effort. However, he also admits that such easy access and wealth of data has its price. He cited Marshall McLuhan, who discusses how the media has become a passive source of information, as it supplies information for thought, as well as shaping the process of thought (Carr, 2008). In effect, the internet has damaged people’s capacity for concentration and contemplation, as the mind seems now seems to expect to gain data in the same way as the internet also distributes it: through “swiftly moving stream of particles” (Carr, 2008). Now the information process is likened to skipping on the surface on a Jet Ski. Carr’s discussion points out how the internet, or how Google, has made the learning process, less intellectual, and more insubstantial. Various intellectuals seem to have a similar complaint – that of the fact that they have less concentration and more difficulties in focusing on long pieces of writing, the more that they use the internet. Individuals who used to be good readers most of their lives, admittedly reduced their reading frequency because of the internet (Carr, 2008). Some readers also declare that their mental habits have changed, and they are often unable to absorb and comprehend long articles on the internet and on print. Their thought processes seem to have taken on a ‘staccato’ quality wherein the way they read information is akin to how they gather or read information online – skimming through information and short passages (Carr, 2008). A review of students in the University of London College also revealed that students often skim through their sources, surfing from one source to another and not exactly using any one particular source through to the end. These students just read through one or two pages of a source or article and then move on to another site. They save the longer articles but it is unclear if they actually return to these articles to read them (Carr, 2008). They power browse titles, abstracts, table of contents as convenient and easy means to ‘read’ the text or book. Experts claim that the style of reading being promoted in the internet is a style which seems to place a primer on immediacy, not so much on immediacy; and this style also weakens the function of deep reading which has been dominant in earlier forms of technology (Wolf, 2007). Wolf (2007) also mentions that reading online seems to make people decoders of data, and the ability of people to interpret data is not sufficiently engaged. As a result, the more analytical process which is required in reading is lost, making a person’s intellectual abilities less developed and less involved. 4. Memory retention Due to the significant amount of information now available on the web, there seems to be less motivation among individuals to recall such data, knowing that they can easily access or ‘recall’ such information by simply “Googling’ it (Worthen, 2008). Worthen (2008) discusses that the increasing significance on the ability to gain information online instead of the ability to gain information from memory would cause a shift in companies’ employee quality requirements. In effect, companies would likely hire people for their computer and internet searching skills, not so much on their ability to synthesize, understand, and critically assess information (Worthen, 2008). Sooner or later, the person who can retain the information the longest or the one who has the sharpest memory and smartest critical skills would not anymore have as much value as the one who could search the internet the fastest. Internet technology being available on most people’s phones is not also helping people to retain essential information or to challenge their intellect in the most essential ways. Recalling directions or phone numbers is even more accessible on these gadgets; as a result, the issue of memory retention remains to be a significant problem in the use of the internet and the Google search engine (Worthen, 2008). In a 2011 study by Sparrow, et.al., relying on our computers and data from the internet for memory on intellectual processes is based on the same transactive memory processes which support social information sharing. Their study revealed that people transact information easily since they also think about computers when they need some information (Sparrow, et.al., 2011). The social means of storing data is also based on the findings that people tend to forget things that will eventually be available to them, and end up trying harder on data they think will no longer be available to them (Sparrow, et.al., 2011). The experiment also revealed that participants were poor in terms of memory recall on both statements and folder, and on recalling the statement, not the folder. The participants were also more likely to recall nothing, but may recall the folder, when they were unfamiliar with the statement. In effect, the participants were not likely to remember where when they knew what, but they did recall where to find the data (Sparrow, et.al., 2011). These respondents also did remember where to find it when they were able to recall the data. These results indicate that when individuals require data to remain easily available, they are also more predisposed to recall where to find it, not so much on remembering the details of the item they needed to find (Sparrow, et.al., 2011). Essentially therefore, people’s ability to retain information about a particular matter is more predisposed to be forgotten with the current available computer and internet technologies. 5. Google and the brain Google/technology impact on the brain Google and the internet’s search engines and databases have such a wealth of data stored there that it also has become an external memory source that can be accessible at anytime. This has changed how the brain has worked in so many ways. People seem to have developed transactive memories which is composed of information stored by individuals and the memory stores they can gain access to (Sparrow, et.al., 2011). This process however has impacted negatively on memory retention and recall, diminishing the thinking process into a less significant aspect of learning. Harvard students who were included in a study reviewing memory recall were asked to type various pieces of trivia, into the computers and they were also informed that the data would either be removed or saved (International Business Times, 2011). The study revealed that respondents who thought that the data would be saved were less likely to remember such data. In effect, in facing difficult situations, people are ready to think about the internet and when they think of the internet, they store the information at less likelihood (IB Times, 2011). The study also established that individuals often go to the internet first to gain knowledge or to recall something. When respondents were queried about flags and the number of colours in such flags, they were also less likely to think about flags, but immediately thought about going to the internet to gain such information (IB Times, 2011). Sparrow (2011) also emphasized that “our brains rely on the internet for memory in much the same way they rely on the memory of a friend, family member or co-worker...We remember less through knowing information itself than by knowing where the information can be found”. 6. Academic impact of Google Anything can literally be found off of the internet simply by Googling something. Rarely does the internet and the search engine disappoint in providing much needed information. For a student, this seems to be a very advantageous scenario as they are able to access everything, from books to journals, to book reviews, and relevant home economics tips on ‘how to’ projects. However, the internet is also open to all other types of media, including comics, videos, games, music, and other information which often serves to distract these students from their academic work. There is a major dilemma among educators on the use of the internet, and its search engines. Some believe that the internet is a veritable fount of information (LeBeau, 2011). Internet websites can be made available to students to access relevant research from; they can get their course syllabus from there, previous studies they can base their research on, including schedules of quizzes, assignments, and examinations. These are online teaching aids which are useful and convenient for many colleges. Online registrations have also been made available among universities and this enrolment style has gained much growth throughout the years. More importantly, online courses have also been made available for students. These classes often do not require attendance, which helps students save on rent, transportation, time, and food expenses (LeBeau, 2011). These students can also carry out their courses on their own time, without having to deal with full classrooms, scheduling conflicts, or even traffic. The interactive process between the students and the teachers can still be maintained online, especially with available internet technologies like video chatting, and video conferencing. The issue of whether this mode of learning is effective in terms of knowledge retained and information gained remains to be an unsettled question. As this mode of learning is new, the information on efficacy is not very rich or available for this current study. Nevertheless, the traditional classroom setting is still the best way to learn (LeBeau, 2011). Moreover, learners are largely different from each other. Whereas some of them would thrive in the online setting, using search engines as much as they can to supplement their knowledge, other learners may prefer and learn more in the actual classroom interactive process. In these instances, the learners are more engaged in an interactive learning environment, not so much in the enclosed online setting. 7. Google and Deep Reading Deep reading is a difficult task to accomplish in the online setting. This much was already raised previously in discussions by Carr and other intellectuals. The emphasis of Googling something and of learning some new information online is largely based on a massive amount of data, as well as multitasking and interactive modes of communication. However, for the slow learners this process can be more time consuming and be counterproductive. Instead, the true learning process can only be gained through deep reading. Deep reading involves a wide range of sophisticated processes which promote comprehension; and it also includes inferential and deductive reasoning as well as critical analysis, reflection and insight (Wolf and Barzillai, 2009). An expert reader would process such information easily, and it takes years for a brain to ever reach this stage of expertise. However, this process of development is put in danger by the current digital culture which is based on immediacy, not efficiency, and one which often does not permit the development or the support of deliberative learning (Wolf and Barzillai, 2009). This dilemma presents a challenge for the present and future generations, one which is likely to impact on their ability to analyse and contemplate. The current internet and Googling generation is also vulnerable to skewed processes of reading and acquiring data. Man was not born with an innate ability to read, this much is also understood by most people (Wolf, 2007). Man was born with other abilities, including the ability to speak, to move, and to think. This is not the same with reading because it is a cognitive act which is part of an evolutionary process. In understanding how the reading process works, it is possible to comprehend the flexibility of the brain. As a result, the flexibility of the brain allows the formation of new connections among the different structures which support vision, hearing, and cognition (Wolf and Barzillai, 2009). If the brain then has no fixed circuitry, then the different circuitries for languages and writing learning systems would not look the same. A significant amount of cross-imaging demonstrates various adjustments in the process of reading. A Chinese reader’s brain would therefore require activation of visual areas in the occipital region in order for the reader to develop the adequate processing of a significant amount of Chinese letters and characters (Wolf and Barzillai, 2009). The English or American English Alphabet system would however require development along the temporal and parietal areas in order to accommodate the alphabet’s emphasis on sounds and the rules which match visual symbols (Wolf, 2007). For young learners, there is a need to activate their brains in order to reach the level of development which adults eventually reach. In the current internet age, this is a major dilemma because skimming through the internet seems to be the norm, and no deep reading is engaged and developed. With digital text, the ability to be creative and to discover is significant (Wolf and Barzillai, 2009). However, the internet also presents an uncensored and unedited information source which contains anything available and capable of distracting one’s attention. In effect, being a deep reader is a difficult state to reach for these online learners and readers. In the process, it is a state which may sometimes never be reached for the slow learners. 8. Google does not make us stupid Varian (2010), was quick to respond to the arguments of Carr, arguing that based on various studies and points of contention by different intellectuals, Google does not make man stupid, instead, it actually makes man smarter. He cites Cascio who declares that in order for man to survive in the current technical world, man has to get smarter. The process of man getting smarter is already happening and it is a process which is very much apparent in the internet, in the tools of simulation and visualization which are also bringing new life to various innovative scientific disciplines (in Varian, 2010). The widespread use of technology and the media can indeed present a challenge on man’s capacity to concentrate; however, there are signs of the development of fluid intelligence or the ability to establish meaning among in the midst of confusion and in resolving problems (Varian, 2010). Moreover, the intellectuals and the technically savvy individuals will find ways in order to assist those who have trouble engaging in the new and internet-based technologies. In a survey of internet users, respondents were asked to evaluate the truth to two statements involving internet and Google use, and a good majority (76%) of the respondents replied that “By 2020 people’s use of the internet has enhanced human intelligence; as people are allowed unprecedented access to more information they become smarter and make better choices” (Varian, 2010). Other authors and intellectuals, inasmuch as they do point out the negative effect of Google on man’s intellectual prowess, admit that the internet’s impact on the intellectual lives of individuals cannot always be evaluated by IQ scores (Carr, 2008). The internet is however useful in shifting the emphasis on people’s intelligence a bit further away from meditative or contemplative intelligence, and more towards utilitarian and even practical intelligence. In the end, practical knowledge may be more useful for man in the face of the wealth of information readily available to him (Carr, 2008). Norvig (in O’Kelly and Lyon, 2011) also discusses that the best way to read books is through deep and concentrated reading; however, with the unlimited access to various materials, books, articles, journals, and blogs, skimming is a goof first strategy. Skimming through these materials allows us to have an overview of the materials, and then a deeper reading may follow. Both need to coexist in order to take full advantage of the materials available. Varian (2010) also discusses that Google helps people become more informed, giving people anywhere in the world the opportunity to access information. Providing such universal access helps people develop their potential, helps to equalize the opportunity for knowledge (Varian, 2010). It can also shift cognitive capacities, not having to remember as much, but still requiring individuals to think harder, to be more critical, and to be more analytical about the wealth of information available. Less time given to memorization therefore gives the people a chance to devote themselves to other new skills and even to master these for proper application (Varian, 2010). Google, in some ways can also make people stupid and smart at the same time (Bullinga in Anderson and Rainie, 2010). The future will likely spell a world where the 3D technology is pervasive and the digital media will encompass all aspects of our lives. In this world, we would likely be faced with intelligent machines where simple and complex activities would be assigned. We would likely lose skills that were useful to us; however we would also gain skills in order to make better choices. The gains in this instant would be bigger than the losses (Bullinga in Anderson and Rainie, 2010). Moreover, some activities and tasked would also be divested in favour of Google and other internet services, and the minor tasks would not be carried out in our minds anymore. Such role however has already been offloaded on to paper for many years now (Bubley in Anderson and Rainie, 2010). On the other hand, the internet, including its search engine technologies would be providing improvements in neuroscience and cognitive research. Google would also help support parts of human intelligence, including analysis which would sometimes replace other parts of memory (Maistrellis, 2010). Therefore, individuals would be more informed about other technicalities because Google would remember these facts on their behalf. This is a favourable process as this is what we all have come to desire since the days when arithmetic skills, abacuses, and calculators have been developed in order to make the computational processes easier (Maistrellis, 2010). There is something ironic therefore in denying the current levels that technology has reached because of its possible and perceived dangers. It is also not favourable to consider intelligence as something undifferentiated (Anderson and Rainie, 2010). There is no doubt that as we would evolve as people, we would also be worse at some others, or more stupid at some things. However, with a better capacity, we may also be capable of advanced integration and evaluation (Gupta, 2011). The current learning system, the more informal processes of learning will eventually become the norm because technology needs to be learned in order to gain faster ways to become economically productive (Gupta, 2011). 9. Conclusion The above discussion presents two sides to a debate. On one side, there is a belief that Google makes us stupid. Those who argue that Google makes us stupid claim that the elimination of deep reading has caused people to be less critical and less intellectual about what they read and process into their brain. The fact that they can simply avoid the process of reading an entire book in order to gain the knowledge that they need causes them to be less intellectual, and in some ways, more ‘stupid.’ It also prevents individuals from being critical about what they read, allowing what the internet gives them to make up the entire bulk of their learning process. On the other hand, Google does not make people stupid, instead it gives individuals another aspect of learning which can still prove challenging. Such challenge in the learning activity would prevent them from becoming stupid; instead, it would make them smarter and more able to respond to the changes in the intellectual sphere of learning. There is a middle ground and a compromise which can be reached in the current learning process and such middle ground is based on the fact that it is possible to still maintain the deep reading attitude in the midst of the skimming habit seen in the current internet-savvy world. The process of adjustment is however important in order to reach such middle ground. In actuality, adjustments are essential in order to maintain people’s intellectual prowess in the face of the current internet technologies and the Google search engine. These adjustments would help maintain the intellectual abilities of people, even propelling such abilities to different levels of learning. All in all however, it is logical to consider that Google does not make people stupid. 10. Recommendations Based on the above discussion, it is best to consider that Google is not making people stupid. Although it is indeed reducing people’s capacity for intellectual and analytical thought, as well as memory retention, it is also a technology which is challenging individuals into the next intellectual plane of learning development. The internet is one of the most pervasive technologies now available and it will also likely be here to stay, it will also continue to evolve, and man will continue to adapt to its use and processes. Based on such considerations, man’s brain and intellectual processes would also likely evolve and adjust. As such, it would adjust to the current processes available in the learning and development process. A person would likely adjust to the technologies, learning more things and absorbing them into his intellectual processes. The new knowledge he would gain would not serve to make him stupid, but it would give him a different type of understanding, a different kind of learning and intelligence. The deep reading and intellectual process which used to form part of the reading process would not be the same, however, other challenges of learning, including the critical analysis of the wealth of information available would form a major bulk of the learning process. This would prevent people from becoming stupid because the intellectual processes are still there, only in different forms and different applications. And man would adjust, learn new things, and this continuous learning would prevent the brain and cognitive process from being diminished. References Anderson, J. & Rainie, L. 2010, Does Google Make Us Stupid? Pew Research Center Publications, viewed 29 November 2011 from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1499/google-does-it-make-us-stupid-experts-stakeholders-mostly-say-no Bubley, D. 2010, Google does not make us stupid, in Anderson, J. & Rainie, L. 2010, Does Google Make Us Stupid? Pew Research Center Publications, viewed 29 November 2011 from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1499/google-does-it-make-us-stupid-experts-stakeholders-mostly-say-no Bullinga, M. 2010, in Anderson, J. & Rainie, L. 2010, Does Google Make Us Stupid? Pew Research Center Publications, viewed 29 November 2011 from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1499/google-does-it-make-us-stupid-experts-stakeholders-mostly-say-no Carr, N. 2008, Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet is doing to our brains, The Atlantic, viewed 29 November 2011 from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/ Google (n.d). Google’s mission is to organize the world‘s information and make it universally accessible and useful, viewed 29 November 2011 from http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/ Gupta, M. 2011, How the Internet makes us stupid and smart, Euroscom, viewed 29 November 2011 from ftp://www.ist-daidalos.org/pub/outgoing/message/message-02-2011/a-final-texts-message/016_Viewpoint_Internet-Effects_v1.doc International Business Times 2011, Google Effect: Changes to our Brains, viewed 29 November 2011 from http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/181620/20110716/google-effect-changes-to-our-brains.htm LeBeau, R. 2011, Is Google Making Us Smart? Worcester Polytechnic Institute, viewed 29 November 2011 from https://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-042811-102422/unrestricted/Social_Effects_of_the_Internet.pdf Maistrellis, E. 2010, Google is making me stupid, University of Massachusetts, viewed 29 November 2011 from http://www.umass.edu/writingprogram/downloads/Student%20Writing%20Anthology%2010-11.pdf#page=81 O’Kelly, M. & Lyon, C. 2011, Google like a librarian: Sharing skills for search success, Grand Valley State University, viewed 29 November 2011 from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=library_sp&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com.ph%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dnorvig%2520google%2520stupid%26gs_sm%3De%26gs_upl%3D1376l7922l0l10314l26l26l3l5l0l0l346l3603l1.9.5.3l18l0%26um%3D1%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dws#search=%22norvig%20google%20stupid%22 Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. 2011, Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips, Harvard University, viewed 29 November 2011 from http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/pdfs/science.1207745.full.pdf Varian, H. 2010, Does Google Make Us Smarter? The World Says Resoundingly, "Yes", The Daily Galaxy, viewed 29 November 2011 from http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/-does-google-make-us-smarter-new-research-says-yes.html Wolf, M. & Barzillai, M. 2009, The Importance of Deep Reading, Literacy 2.0, vol. 66(6): pp. 32-37. Wolf, M. 2007, Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain, London: HarperCollins. Read More