Is Google Making Us Stupid Summary and Analysis

In this article by Nicholas Carr, Carr describes his theory on how the widespread use of technology, specifically the internet, has devalued the human mind, leading us to be less capable of deep thought and shortened our attention spans drastically. Carr references Nietzsche and his adoption of the typewriter, quoting Friedrich Kittler a renowned media scholar, on how Nietzsche's prose was affected by his use of the typewriter: “changed from arguments to aphorisms, from thoughts to puns, from rhetoric to telegram style”. Carr’s uses Kittler, a well known scholar, and Nietzsche an even more well known philosopher as an appeal to authority, and in citing them reinforces his main thesis that the use of technology can effect the human mind. Carr proceeds to debunk the myth that upon reaching adulthood the human brain stops developing by citing a study from James Olds, the director of the Krasnow Institute, for Advanced Study at George Mason University. In a quote from Olds, Carr relays that the human brain is constantly evolving, with old neurological pathways constantly being demolished and rebuilt. Carr states that with the use of “intellectual technologies” (technologies that enhance mental rather than physical capabilities) we as very malleable human beings will gradually adapt and adopt features of the technology. In the case of the internet Carr claims that we lose the ability of deep pensive thought and reading ability in favor of mass acquisition of data through what he calls “power browsing”.

As I read through Carr’s article I found myself unconsciously drifting off, my mind was wandering. I wonder if I was exhibiting symptoms of what Carr describes thought the piece, being lack of attention span, or was Carr simply failing to retain my attention? I personally don’t fully agree with the message of the article. Being born in February of 2001, I have spent the vast majority of my life both surrounded by and using different forms of modern technology from cell phones to laptops. I can relate to Bruce Friedman who provided a quote in the article, as last semester I took war and peace and also initially struggled with delving into its complexities and it did take me a long time to adapt to the amount of mental gymnastics it required from me. Overall, I would say that I disagree with the points made by Carr throughout the article. I think he comes across as rather biased, and does not fairly cover both sides of the argument. Carr goes to great ends to present his side with multiple anecdotes and quotes from ongoing studies, but fails to present the opposing side. I personally have experienced this inability to immerse myself in a work. I believe that in all of these cases it could be explained in a much simpler manner, I was distracted, or didn’t know enough about the topic. According to Occam's razor, when presented with two or more possible explanations to a problem, the solution which is most likely to be correct is the simplest one.