PRESENT TENSE
THE COVER STORY in the latest edition of US magazine the Atlantic Monthly asks a very straightforward question: "Is Google making us stupid?" It's a good poser, and the article encompasses not only the search engine giant but the internet in general.
You may recognise the writer's neuroses. Nicholas Carr complains that the internet has triggered in him an "uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, ramping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory".
He describes the paradox inherent in how we may well be reading more, but have less patience with what we read, and bemoans the way he can only digest information if it comes in bite-sized chunks. "My concentration starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I'm always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle."
Carr is no Luddite - he writes expertly about the web, and has used his blog to discuss the positive reaction to his piece - so his complaint about becoming "scatterbrained" has caused a stir. And what is the answer to the big question? There's none really, only more questions.
Carr acknowledges that the longer-term consequences can't yet be known because we are still in the early days of this great technological shift. So, his piece turns out largely to be a handwringing exercise, in whichanecdotal information and isolated studies are glued together by angst.
For a simple question, the conclusions may prove complex. For instance, you can read Carr's piece at www.theatlantic.com, but you'll probably find it difficult to read online. The eyes don't like the screen, and prefer you to print it off and read it on paper.
The internet, then, deals in brevity. Even longer pieces - such as those on Wikipedia - are broken into short, neat sections. Is this evidence that the web is making us stupid? No. We unconsciously prefer it that way, so the medium has adapted to deal with that problem.
This has become an issue for newspapers and magazines, whose longer articles are kept for print editions, while exclusively online content is pithy. But Carr points out how so much of those graphic devices have made their way into the traditional media. Some newspapers, for instance, now use shortened articles and panel summaries.
Yet, one of the most fascinating lessons from a glance through old newspapers is how many of the supposedly modern ideas were in use a century ago. The current drift towards panels and punchier pieces may have been triggered by our becoming used to the web, but it doesn't mean it's a reward for our laziness. It may just be a revertion to our preferred way of getting information.
Meanwhile, the riot of graphics on every news channel may be television's way of giving viewers what they've come to expect. This is a generation used to absorbing a great deal of information, simultaneously. It could be years before we really understand how this affects concentration, memory, information absorption and the like.
However, it's arguable that a generation that walks around with the internet in its pocket shouldn't be concerned about memory anyway. If the internet is an unreliable source of information, a case could hardly be made that human memory is any better. And for the studies claiming that computers dumb us down, there are others that suggest otherwise. For instance, some research has shown that home internet use improved the standardised reading scores of low-income children who had been underperforming in school.
Studies on the impact of computer games have even muddied their reputation as a passive activity. When your child is sitting, semi-catatonic, in front of a console, he is actually learning how to multi-task, make quick decisions, and hone mental-reaction speeds. He may also be getting fat, but that's another thing altogether.
Carr's article may ultimately become iconic as an examle of the intellectual angst that has previously accompanied the arrival of mass printing and rock music, and which may prove comical to future generations. In the 21st century, they may mock such fears; or, as with television, perhaps it will continually be represented as an idiot box, regardless of all the good it brings.
Either way, Carr is a member of a generation that grew up conditioned to learn through one medium, only to be swept up in a revolution.
The way information is now disseminated may prove traumatic to some, but will be second nature to those following behind. And they will probably ask the question: "Were people stupid before Google?"
...
shegarty@irish-times.ie
"It could
be years before we really understand how this affects concentration, memory and information absorption