How the Internet Affects our Minds

[AuntShecky]

We spend many hours a week web surfing, blogging, Twittering, and watching streaming video. It occurs to some of us that all this online activity may be affecting our minds, perhaps (shudder) in undesirable ways.

This entertaining article by Michael Agger of Slate, examines The Shallows, a book on the topic by Nicholas Carr:

http://www.slate.com/id/2255923/

Carr hypothesizes that the Internet has not only changed our reading habits but also altered our brains. By clicking on web pages and scanning them quickly -- in effect, superficially --we may be losing the ability to think "deeply" The obvious effect is upon our own personal as well as collective attention span, through a high degree of distractibility, thanks to the omnipresence of hyperlinks within a given online article. Each time the browser is directed away from the original article, the train of thought is lost, or rather directed onto several different tracks all at once. According to Agger, Carr believes that the "intellectual environment of the Internet" is the equivalent of simultaneously "trying to reading a book and doing a crossword puzzle."

Additionally, this interview by Alan Jacobs in The Atlantic Monthly is outstanding. We might have expected an academic to side more closely with the Luddites rather than the cheerleaders of every form of new technology, yet he does maintain positions that any traditionalist would love. Jacobs believes that books in digital format (such as "Kindle," etc.) are not only fine but all that different from a book printed on paper, which, by the way, he does not think are moribund. Another surprising point is that he has found that his students do much better on their poetry papers when they memorize the poem under scrutiny.
Here's the link to the one-page article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/special-report/ideas/archive/2010/06/reading-writing-and-thinking-online-an-interview-with-alan-jacobs/57807/

Your thoughts?

[L.M. The Third]

Very interesting and somewhat disconcerting. However, I think I can safely assume that most of us are not about to trash our laptops or disconnect the internet. So, the question is, what can we do to develop deeper and concentrated reading skills, in spite of our copious internet usage?

[Janine]

I think there is a lot of truth to this; also, the addictive factor of the internet; I think I go into immediate withdrawal mode when I can't get online! Seriously though, I have sensed I have a bad habit of quiting a video before the end to go watch another, because I can't seem to absorb them fast enough. Same when reading an article. I am sure this must be altering my brain. I do several things at once on my computer and often I can't concentrate like I used to be able to do, but that might be old age. I don't think the internet is making us dumb; I actually think the opposite - it's expanding our knowledge. It most likely is taking some toll on our brains, but as the poster above me said - no one is going to give it up. I know I can't! Good question - what are we going to do about it?

By the way, I did see the author before this being interviewed. I only slightly thought his argument held up but would be interested in seeing or reading more about it.

[Virgil]

I agree with Carr. I think my process of thinking and attention span has changed since the internet. I do think it has altered my brain somewhat. But there are positives too. My scope of knowledge has increased and I think I can zero in on on the crux of issues better. Not sure if on balance it's a negative though.

[L.M. The Third]

I do several things at once on my computer

So do I. I sometimes have up to half a dozen tabs up at once.
It was interesting what was said about hyperlinks. I generally think of them as a real bonus, since I can be reading, for instance, a Wikipedia article and learn something about new things I come across as I read. So, yes, I think my scope of knowledge is increased, but my concentration is lessened and I am more easily distracted.

[Paulclem]

The contrary view to the "internet reading is bad" view is that it now offers so much more opportunity. It's like having a reference book - with super-easy turn pages - that's as big as a big house - in your house.

I also recently read an educational document that talked about authoring your own reading. I like the democratic feel this has. Previously you read a book/ article/ paper and accepted whatever was printed for you - at the time. Now you can veer off and check stuff out.

The claim is that there are a lot of untruths, misinformation etc etc on the internet, and, while this might be true, there are ways to test it out against trusted sources also online.

As for altering brains - yes there's no doubt, but as he points out, having gone to use his e-reader, he has re-focused his reading. The brain doesn't change to stone in an irreversible way. It can be trained and trained back. But really it's about awareness - are you going to let your reading skills slip? No. On this forum we are aware of the benefits of deep reading skills in order to investigate texts. There is absolutely no doubt that the discerning skimmer and scanner can complete research, find references/ quotes etc very quickly - as i did recently for a couple of essays I needed to do. In truth we need both skills.

[AuntShecky]

Thanks for all the replies to this so far. I haven't anything to add at the moment, except-- PaulClem (last reply before this one) is absolutely correct about the "democratic" nature of the Internet. Just speaking for myself, I never did as much writing ( or at least displaying it for dissemation) as I've been doing since we got the PC here at Chez Shecky.

I'm glad, also, Paul, that you mentioned the fact that the Web contains untold bits of erroneous data and it is wise to check more than one source. Keep in mind, however,that even if numerous Web pages post the same "fact" that doesn't necessarily mean that the information is correct. Many websites gather their material from the same source and then post and re-post the mistake over and over. (I hasten to add that Wikipedia is much, much more reliable than it was a few years ago.) Oh, and finally, Paul, I wonder if you could stop using "author" as a verb. It's almost like using "up" as a verb to mean "increase."

[Paulclem]

Thanks for all the replies to this so far. I haven't anything to add at the moment, except-- PaulClem (last reply before this one) is absolutely correct about the "democratic" nature of the Internet. Just speaking for myself, I never did as much writing ( or at least displaying it for dissemation) as I've been doing since we got the PC here at Chez Shecky.

I'm glad, also, Paul, that you mentioned the fact that the Web contains untold bits of erroneous data and it is wise to check more than one source. Keep in mind, however,that even if numerous Web pages post the same "fact" that doesn't necessarily mean that the information is correct. Many websites gather their material from the same source and then post and re-post the mistake over and over. (I hasten to add that Wikipedia is much, much more reliable than it was a few years ago.) Oh, and finally, Paul, I wonder if you could stop using "author" as a verb. It's almost like using "up" as a verb to mean "increase."

Yes - point taken over multiplied disinformation. At least there are also reliable sources on the web too.

As for authoring - I'm afaid not. It was in the text I read on reading on the internet, and I like the changing nature of the language. You mean up verb as in upskill? I like this challenging aspect of English. 10 years ago we didn't use the word do-able, but now it is commonplace. It is also disliked by some, but merely manifests the "democratic" aspect of English.

I like the fact that what comes into the language depends upon it's use.:D

[Quark]

I think there is a lot of truth to this; also, the addictive factor of the internet; I think I go into immediate withdrawal mode when I can't get online! Seriously though, I have sensed I have a bad habit of quiting a video before the end to go watch another, because I can't seem to absorb them fast enough.

Well, according to The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html) you may be a dopamine addict! Researchers claim that the rapid burst of information on the internet can cause short-term increases in certain neurotransmitters. That sounds scary--like we're going to have a bunch of crazed, hopelessly hooked monsters running around the country soon. I think The Nation did a good job putting this issue in context in a review they published recently: (http://www.thenation.com/article/death-and-life-book-review). The reviewer pulls an anecdote from The Case for Books, Past Present and Future:


Seeking some solace I picked up a book, and in a matter of minutes I read the following passage:

Now that anyone is free to print whatever they wish, they often disregard that which is best and instead write, merely for the sake of entertainment, what would best be forgotten, or, better still be erased from all books.

The sense of impoverishment before an overabundance of information; of helplessness before the need to spot relevant material in a slurry of ephemera; of vertigo provoked by the realization that "the present" is becoming overwhelmingly, annoyingly accessible—many of us, I'd wager, have had these reactions after reading those year-end digests or spending just a modicum of time online. Now anyone is free to print whatever they wish. This could be someone kvetching about blogs, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube or Twitter, and in not 500 words or 300 but nine. Except it wasn't. The jeremiad was the handiwork of Niccolò Perotti, a learned Italian classicist, writing to his friend Francesco Guarnerio in 1471, less than twenty years after the invention of the printing press.

I think it helps to remember that technological improvements have frequently caused anxiety about new content and its effect on readers. Sometimes these fears can be magnified when there's class, institutional, or age difference between the groups represented by different technologies, like the difference between manuscript creation by the church and paper printing controlled by secular, capatalist society. Similarly, researchers today may be exaggerating differences between media because there's an age gap between those using print and those using computers. When the internet becomes better known, we might see the difference between print and computer technology shrink. I'm sure once users learn which sites they really want to visit, and they don't have to search through tons they don't want to see, entries on these sites will get longer and more involved. It will probably start to look more like articles and books online rather than posts. Who knows? Maybe we will even get an indent command on LitNet to make real paragraphs?


Paul, I wonder if you could stop using "author" as a verb. It's almost like using "up" as a verb to mean "increase."

Reminds me of an old Calvin and Hobbes strip from the comic's later years when it got really preachy:


http://www.jonathannewton.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/cnhVerbingWeirdsLanguage.gif

[billl]

Similarly, researchers today may be exaggerating differences between media because there's an age gap between those using print and those using computers. When the internet becomes better known, we might see the difference between print and computer technology shrink. I'm sure once users learn which sites they really want to visit, and they don't have to search through tons they don't want to see, entries on these sites will get longer and more involved. It will probably start to look more like articles and books online rather than posts.

I haven't heard this suggestion in regards to this issue before (at least not in such brief and optimistic terms :)). Rather than the old situation with the printing press (the appearance of a bunch of books, that more and more people might choose to explore), the whole issue with the internet is that it is a bunch of information that doesn't resemble a book. The internet is a perfect place for distraction, and interruption. As long as there is at least one button that can open up a wider world of information on the device, it is going to be different than a book.

As cultures adapted to the printing press, it was not a process of turning smallish and immediate bursts of info into larger and larger, more-book-sized items. The change was, I think (and I've read some McCluhan, but am no expert on the history), a social reaction to a greater availability of books (with more writers and readers getting into the mix), as well as the wide-scale introduction of the particular mode-of-thought that reading brings to us--the deeper and focussed exploration of ideas. So I'm not so sure that the concerns brought up in this thread's discussion are going to end up naturally resolving in the same way that people adapted to print technology.

Our current woes about information overload might echo Perotti's a bit though (again, a lot of the info seems worthless, just as it did to Perotti), but I don't think he was really worried about people losing their ability to focus and think deeply. The internet is having a positive effect, just as the printing press did (and Perotti didn't recognize, which is probably your point), in that it is opening more and more people's minds and creating a vaster realm of ideas. But one problem is that it is perhaps set up to demolish some very good cognitive habits, if we aren't careful. I don't think it is the case that people need more time to learn which sites they want to visit, at this point. However, I think that you are right, in the sense that (via discussion such as the one in this thread) people should become conscious of such a need to spend time in one "place" more often.

----------------------------

For me though, another BIG issue is how all of this information will be "made" more "useful" to us. There is talk of filters (e.g. Pandora, and that is just the beginning) which will narrow down the info, based on our interests, and the interests of others. There are services such as Facebook, that seek to streamline things for us, and connect things together. And the surface interactions with these sorts of services can be exciting, and seem quite safe and comfortable. But these filters and life-online services have dangers and downsides, and work against some of the less standardized and less digital strengths that humans have developed. In certain ways, the technology functions with greater and greater efficiency as we stoop to its limitations--and there are benefits, of course, but the price we pay is sometimes ignored.

I think the big issue is: Yes, many people report shortening attention spans. There are efforts at instant-click Pavlovian presentation/marketing. There are unseen algorithms monitoring (and, potentially, subtly directing the presentation of) our choices. People are buying gadgets that are designed to draw them away from their real surroundings. Corporations and tech-guru-type individuals are promoting devices and services in order to maximize profits and influence, and often misrepresent (or hide) the big picture of their business-model, or their social mission/quest.

The founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is alleged (http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5)to have once called the first few thousand users of his website "dumb f***s" for trusting him with their personal info. (Here is Facebook's response (http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-comments-on-zuckerbergs-damning-ims-2010-5) to the allegation.) And here's an interesting interview from a couple weeks ago, where he is asked about his philosophy about privacy, and Facebook's past strategies regarding changing default settings.
http://video.allthingsd.com/video/d8-video-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-on-privacy/68578040-D4B5-4002-A679-130E9D833813

----------------------------

I think that there are interesting points to be made about "opening up" our society (and ourselves?) to some extent, but I think it is important to consider all of the ramifications of this, and to consider how it should be done. And we should keep in mind that the most evangelical about such trends are often those who have the most control over the aggregated information, and stand to profit from greater sharing and openness among their "customers". And that their "customers" are generally given a limited and spun view of what is happening.

(Note: when I refer to "customers" here, I am referring to the typical user that is sharing information--not the businesses and advertisers that are paying the aggregator, e.g. Facebook, for access to the shared information.)

Here is the link to a very interesting book by Jaron Lanier, that goes into some of the stuff I have sort of hastily ranted about (and a lot of other things, too). On the Amazon page there is a brief interview with him that touches on some other important issues about how some trends on the internet are impacting us (including how we think, how we interact, and our attitudes towards ideas and information.)
http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Not-Gadget-Manifesto/dp/0307269647/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276322783&sr=8-1

[AuntShecky]

Yes - point taken over multiplied disinformation. At least there are also reliable sources on the web too.

As for authoring - I'm afaid not. It was in the text I read on reading on the internet, and I like the changing nature of the language. You mean up verb as in upskill? I like this challenging aspect of English. 10 years ago we didn't use the word do-able, but now it is commonplace. It is also disliked by some, but merely manifests the "democratic" aspect of English.

I like the fact that what comes into the language depends upon it's use.:D


Of course I meant "dissemination" -- or did I?

Anyway, my objection to "author" as a verb comes from the fact that we don't say "Angelo barbered my hair" or "Dr. Brown dentisted my teeth." So why would we say,for example, "Donald Westlake authored numerous comic mystery novels"? He was an author, but he wrote novels; he didn't "author" them. The word "doctor" can be a verb, but not in the sense of conveying medical treatment. As a verb it can mean tampering with or messing up: "Somebody doctored these documents" or in a more benign sense, to improve something already written or produced: "George S. Kaufmann doctored many screenplays."

As for "up" as a verb, don't get me started. The local newscasters use that instead of the word "increase," for instance," The legislators may up the tax on soft drinks." A few decades ago there was a fine TV series directed by Mike Nichols in which the mother, played by Sada Thompson, considering selling the family's house. Thinking she would gain a commission, the real estate woman suggested some improvements to the property, adding, "This will up your profit." To which the mother replied, "You mean, it will up yours."

[Paulclem]

Of course I meant "dissemination" -- or did I?

Anyway, my objection to "author" as a verb comes from the fact that we don't say "Angelo barbered my hair" or "Dr. Brown dentisted my teeth." So why would we say,for example, "Donald Westlake authored numerous comic mystery novels"? He was an author, but he wrote novels; he didn't "author" them. The word "doctor" can be a verb, but not in the sense of conveying medical treatment. As a verb it can mean tampering with or messing up: "Somebody doctored these documents" or in a more benign sense, to improve something already written or produced: "George S. Kaufmann doctored many screenplays."

As for "up" as a verb, don't get me started. The local newscasters use that instead of the word "increase," for instance," The legislators may up the tax on soft drinks." A few decades ago there was a fine TV series directed by Mike Nichols in which the mother, played by Sada Thompson, considering selling the family's house. Thinking she would gain a commission, the real estate woman suggested some improvements to the property, adding, "This will up your profit." To which the mother replied, "You mean, it will up yours."

:lol:

I think the language is great, and one of the best things about it is the unpredicatability of it over time. While we're debating whether a word should be "verbed" or not - it has already happened. I used authored because it was used in this text, which I have the book copy of.

http://shop.niace.org.uk/screens-and-pages.html

It's already happened.

There are lots of people in the UK who lament the laxness of the rules, the mistakes - perticularly with the apostrophe - and how the words change. I like the changes because no-one controls it.