Google and Our Brains: A Summary of Nicolas Carr's Article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

Here's my summary and outline of Nicolas Carr's 2008 Atlantic article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" which I prepared for my students this semester (see discussion here). 

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

by Nicholas Carr (The Atlantic July/August 2008)

Summary  

Are we becoming like HAL, the supercomputer featured in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, losing our ability to think? Nicolas Carr suggests as much in his article, “Is Google Making us Stupid?” published in the July/August 2008 issue of The Atlantic. The article begins with Carr’s admission that he, like HAL, feels his mind “is going,” that is, he is losing his ability to concentrate or maintain any level of sustained reading. He attributes this change to the amount of time he now spends reading material online and suspects that the type of reading he does online is “chipping away at [his] capacity for concentration and contemplation.”

Carr’s theory is bolstered not only anecdotally, with fellow writers expressing similar experiences, but scientifically, as an emerging body of research suggests that we “may well be in the midst of a sea change in the way we read and think.” Studies seem to suggest that how we read influences how we think, and that, because we are reading more material online, our brains are actually adapting to the kind of reading we do online. In other words, it’s possible that the way we read actually shapes “the neural circuits inside our brains.”

By analogy, Carr relates the story of how the 19^th century German philosopher Friederich Nietzsche, who was losing his eyesight, began to type his thoughts with his eyes closed. Many noted at the time how his “already terse prose [became] even tighter,” the implication being that the brain, being malleable, will adapt to the technology it is using most frequently. Carr’s point: the Internet affects cognition, causing our brains to adapt, and, consequently, traditional forms of media need to adapt, as well.

What does all this have to do with Google? Another analogy. Staying in the 19^th century, Carr describes how the mechanical engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor revolutionized productivity and efficiency in the steel industry by his methodical scientific analysis of how machinists and machines worked. His objective being, “Maximum speed, maximum efficiency, maximum output,” Taylor developed a “utopia of efficiency,” which relied more on science (facts) than “rule of thumb” (practice).

This same approach applies, Carr suggests, to the realm of the mind, since information is a kind of commodity. Carr suggests that Google’s objective, like Taylor’s, is ultimate efficiency: “What Taylor did for the work of the hand, Google is doing for the work of the mind.” Google seems to be on a quest for the “ultimate search engine,” a Hal-like artificial intelligence that could be “directly attached” to our brains. This objective makes sense if you assume, as the founders of Google apparently do, that “the human brain is just an outdated computer.”

Carr concedes that his fears may be overwrought. He admits that Socrates “bemoaned the development of writing” and that the Gutenberg printing press “set off another round of teeth gnashing.” He advises the reader to “be skeptical of my skepticism” about Google. Nevertheless, he does ask the reader to at least consider the consequences of the loss of “quiet spaces” of the mind. “Deep reading,” he writes, citing one leading researcher, “is indistinguishable from deep thinking.” Carr closes by evoking HAL’s final, poignant plea for the astronaut to “stop.” It’s HAL, Carr muses, who comes across as more human, and the astronaut more machine-like. “That’s the essence of Kubrick’s dark prophesy,” he concludes. “As we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.” 

Is Google Making Us Stupid?*

by Nicholas Carr (The Atlantic July/August 2008)

Outline

Introduction Author begins by analogy, comparing his mind to the supercomputer “HAL” from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey” saying, “My mind is going.” 

I. A Sea Change in the Way We Read and Think (¶ 1-5)

A.        Anecdotal Evidence (his friends’ experiences)

B.        Scientific Evidence ( “power browsing” rather than reading)

C.        Reading More but Thinking Less (“a different kind of reading

            means a different kind of thinking”)

D.        Reading is Not an Instinctive Skill (“the type of reading we

            practice shapes the neural circuits inside our brains”)

II. Intellectual Technologies Give and Take Away (¶ 6-16)

A.        Nietzche’s Typewriter Symbolizes the Connection Between

            Equipment and Thought

B.        The Malleable Brain: The Adult Mind is Plastic and Able to

            Reprogram Itself

C.        The Mechanical Clock Creates a Disassociation Between Time

            and Human Events

D.        How the Internet Affects Cognition

                        1. The Internet Absorbs Other Technologies

                        2. Traditional Media is Transformed as it is Forced to

                        Adapt

III. Taylor’s Algorithm—“A Utopia of Efficiency” (¶ 17-19)

A.        Taylor’s Observation of Workers and Machines at Midvale

            Steel Plant

B.        Maximum Speed, Maximum Efficiency, Maximum Output:

            The Substitution of Science (facts) for “Rule of Thumb”

            (practice).

C.        Fast Forward to Today: Taylor’s Ethic of Industrial

            Manufacturing Now Governs the Realm of the Mind

IV. What is Google’s End Game? (¶ 20-25)

A.        The Science of Measurement: Behavioral Data, Algorithms,

            and Me

B.        The Perfect Search Engine: Information is a Kind of

            Commodity

C.        Can Artificial Intelligence be Connected to Human Brains?

D.        No Room for Ambiguity or Contemplation in Google’s

            Business Model

V. Overreaction or Valid Concern? (¶ 26-30)

A. Socrates’ Fears: The Development of Writing Will Become

            a Substitute for Wisdom

B. Squarciaficos’ Fear: Printing Press Will Lead to Intellectual

            Laziness

C. Deep Reading = Deep Thinking: The Internet is Displacing “Quiet

            Spaces” of the Mind

D. The Author’s Fear: Our Intelligence Flattens, and we are Becoming

            “HAL” 

---

* Copyright of outline and summary belongs to Elaine Minamide (2017)

Puzzling Our Way Through a Longish Article

I assigned Nicolas Carr's essay, "Is Google Making Us Stupid"(published in The Atlantic in 2008) to my English 50 class this semester. The article is slightly more advanced than ones I usually assign to this level (this is a non-transfer level introductory English composition class), so I designed a "Jigsaw" approach, in which five groups of four or five students were given one section to read, analyze, and outline. Groups then were tasked to create a poster-sized outline (illustrated) and present their outlines to the rest of the class, one section at a time. Gradually, the "puzzle pieces" came together to present a completed whole.

Here are the posters from one of my two sections of English 50 (Section III fell off the wall--I'll add that one later).

A follow up assignment (write a formal summary of their individual sections) came next. When we get together next week, I'll present them with a complete summary of the entire article which I wrote and ask them to identify the sections separately and note how they flow together into a seamless whole.

I learned this Jigsaw method during the TESL Certificate Program that I completed this summer at Cal State University San Marcos and decided I'd test it out on my students this semester. The idea behind the method is that a longer, more complex piece of writing that can seem daunting at first seems less so when tackled in smaller segments. For students who feel overwhelmed by "large blocks of uninterrupted text" (referring to The Onion's parody), this is a pretty nifty exercise.

As for the Carr article itself, it is pretty fascinating. He's written a book on the subject, as well, called The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. Personally, I think he's onto something, and I've been trying to push back. More on that later.

Meanwhile, here's my summary and outline.

Dead Fish Don't Swim Upstream

Westerners need to listen to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Instead, she's demonized by the likes of Southern Poverty Law Center, leftists, feminists, and their ilk because she dares to shine a glaring light on the darker side of Islam, specifically Sharia Law, and "dawa" (which she's written about but we Westerners don't know much about). Even though she herself was a victim of this religion (female genital mutilation), she's condemned for criticizing it. 

She says something interesting near the end of this interview. She says the left is actually inadvertently taking sides with radical Islam in its defense of "multi-culturalism." It's ironic that leftists, who have the largest, loudest megaphone in society and who think they're doing good, are, in fact, doing so much harm, not only to those they are opposed to ideologically but to themselves, as well. Because it's women, it's gays, it's even Muslims themselves, who suffer under Sharia. She mentions a female lawmaker or maybe it was a journalist who said we shouldn't call Female Genital Mutilation "mutilation" but rather a "cut." 

Right. Mustn't offend.

We must stop being brainwashed into believing everything we hear from the dominant media ("The Southern Poverty Law Center says she's an Islamophobe; therefore, it must be true") and have the courage to take a stand. And if we don't have the courage to speak these truths (which I don't), then at least have the courage to stand with those who do.

Even this man, Dave Rubin, who is (or was) on the left (he's probably more of a Libertarian) and who is gay, is now being demonized by the left because he has the gall to call out what he sees as the "regressive left" and to speak honestly about issues like free speech, Sharia Law, and so on. He speaks of this in a Prager U video called, "Why I Left the Left," which I'll link below.  

In church this week, our pastor said (quoting W.C. Fields), "A dead fish can float downstream, but it takes a live one to swim upstream." This is something I've been thinking about lately, particularly when it comes to the church. It's hard to swim against the current. And not just hard, sometimes risky. People who stand on principle when it comes to moral or political issues risk their livelihoods, their reputations, their careers, in some cases, their very lives. It's so much easier to stop swimming and succumb to the current. I see this happening in society at large, in the church, among my own friends, in my own thinking. 

********* 

Rubin Report: Episode 79: Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Podcast 5/10/2017)

Description: Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Human Rights Activist) joins Dave Rubin to discuss the preaching of Islam, the left’s alliance with Islamists, the dangers of political Islam, Sharia law, "Islamophobia", her serious fight against the practice of female genital mutilation as well as, her political and idealogical awakening, her foundation and activism, and much more.

"An Anti-Hate Group the Jumped the Shark," by Harry Zieve Cohen (March 6, 2017 Hudson Institute) 

Conclusion: "It’s time for the MSM to stop trusting the SPLC as an authority, to stop boosting the organization’s profile, and to start investigating whether the organization follows best scholarly practices. There is, at this point, plenty of evidence to suggest it doesn’t. With numerous credible sources finding evidence of growing hatred and bigotry in the United States and around the world, it is especially urgent that journalists and concerned citizens stop uncritically repeating the SPLC’s claims. When an organization like the SPLC and the media outlets who trust it abuse their prestige by exaggerating and spinning, discourse in America suffers."

"Why I Left the Left," by Dave Rubin (2/6/2017 Prager University)

Description: Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report used to be a big progressive. He even had a show with The Young Turks! But now he's not a progressive. He has left the left. Why? Dave Rubin shares his story.

Shut Up, They Explained

Behold, the real fascists. 

I'm Not Anti-Science, Just Anti- . . .

I’m not anti-science. 

I’m anti the-science-is-settled-so-shut-up science (e.g., climate debate). 

I’m anti ignoring-science-when-its-conclusions-are-inconvenient-to-my-political-agenda science (e.g., when does life begin debate). 

I’m anti agenda-driven science, funding-to-the-highest-bidder science, tweaking-data-for-the-purpose-of-getting-more-funding science (see, for example, Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Millions, by Richard Harris). 

In short, I’m anti the-politicization-of-science, which, to me, was what yesterday’s march was about more than anything else.

Here’s a much more articulate statement by the wonderful Mona Charen over at National Review.

How Progressives Cherry-Pick the Science They Like, by Mona Charen

We're With Her: The Freedom Caucus Made its Choice

Sometimes it just comes down to this: you're either with us or you're against us.

Today, the members of the GOP House Freedom Caucus (or "The Freedom From Reality Caucus," as the Wall Street Journal editorial board referred to them in yesterday's paper), made their choice. By refusing to heed the wisdom of the old cliché, "Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good," they've sided with the opposing team. 

My guess is they'll come to rue the day. 

C'est la vie en politique.

Here's a little something I created to honor their contribution to today's débâcle.

Alternative Facts or Alternative World Views?

“The Trump administration and many Republicans are doubling down as the party that denies science and promotes 'alternative facts'. Maybe Democrats will step in as the party of truth, rather than the party of political correctness” (a Facebook friend's post).

I’ve been thinking about that term (alternative facts). It’s easy to mock--especially in the context of how Kellyanne Conway used it recently--as Orwellian. 

But if you think about it, most of us tend to rely on the facts that best suit our worldview. Some people call this confirmation bias, and maybe that’s what it is. Take, for instance, the climate debate. A person whose main concern has to do with the environment will quite naturally be convinced by the science that proves or disproves some aspect of this issue. Another person is more concerned about the economy. So the research he is most influenced by has to do with the impact any proposed solutions generated by the climate debate will have on the economy. In other words, what are the ultimate consequences of these actions from a utilitarian point of view? Which would result in the greater good, or the greater good to the most people? We can argue about long term vs. short term good, but to dismiss his response as anti-science or to denigrate the facts he relies on as bogus simply because they’re focusing on a different aspect of the argument is to set up roadblocks to discussion, compromise, and solution. 

This goes both ways. A person who opposes abortion because he believes the unborn fetus is fully human believes this based on evidence--ultrasound images, advances in fetal research, prenatal surgery, developmental biology. To this person, these facts outweigh the “alternative facts” from the pro-choice side. Both sides rely on facts that support their worldview, and both sides’ facts may be correct in terms of supporting or proving their argument. Unless the facts they use are bogus, or skewed, or unreliable, or dated, or whatever, neither side should denigrate the other side as anti-science (which is the implication of the term “alternative”). 

I think what I’m trying to say here is we need to stop putting up barriers to discussion by dismissing the other side (usually the Republican) as “anti-science.” This is particularly true in the climate debate. Recently, a climate-related story made major headlines, even “alarming” headlines (see images below) about 2016 supposedly being hottest year on record. 

Yet I appreciated the perspective of the Wall Street Journal editors in their  January 19 editorial on the subject (linked below), particularly their concluding remarks. To examine the evidence of a claim, to put it into perspective, to discuss whether or even if proposed solutions will do more harm than good, is not to deny science but to “add to human knowledge on climate,” as the editors put it in their final paragraph: 

"But adding to human knowledge on climate requires a thorough airing and debate over the evidence. That won't happen as long as alarmists continue to try to shut down debate by spinning doomsday tales about sizzling temperatures."

Keeping Cool About Hot Temperatures (Wall Street Journal editorial, January 19, 2017).

Feminists Go Low

It's a new year, it's a new world. Donald Trump is president (what the heck?) and feminists are nasty and proud of it. 

Hello, 2017.

It's the nasty woman thing that's on my mind this morning. 

It wasn't too long ago when the slogan of the left was, in response to Mr. Trump's incivil campaign and uncouth persona, "When they go low, we go high." In fact, it was Michelle Obama who introduced the phrase July of last year, speaking at the Democratic National Convention:

Very effective. A devastating rebuke to Trump and his supporters. 

So much for slogans. 

Michelle Obama may have gone high, but her sisters--at least, the sisters at Saturday's Women's March in Washington D.C. and elsewhere around the globe--went low. As in, into the gutter, low. They were as crude and uncouth as the man they condemn.

Way to keep things classy, ladies. 

I did not march on Saturday. 

Not because I march to the tune of my own drummer (though I tend to). 

Not because I don't much like bandwagons (which is true). 

Not because I don't support women's rights (but really, women's rights are not at risk, in spite of the over-the-top rhetoric). 

I didn't march because I'm not in solidarity with the brand of feminism this event represents. These women do not speak for me. These feminists do not represent me. 

Back in the 90's, Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a book called Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women. One of the best blurbs on the back of the book is, "Sommers has done something lethally deflating to the pretensions of the shriller sort of feminists: she looked at their evidence and found it lacking." Sommers debunks evidence feminists use related to issues such as domestic violence, rape, wage disparity, and anorexia, to name a few. Her objective is not to minimize the seriousness of these issues but to peel away the hyperbole in order to confront them realistically. She writes: 

"Statistics and studies on such provocative subjects as eating disorders, rape, battery, and wage differentials are used to underscore the plight of women in the oppressive gender system and to help recruit adherents to the gender feminist cause. But if the figures are not true, they almost never serve the interests of the victimized women they concern. Anorexia is a disease; blaming men does nothing to help cure it. Battery and rape are crimes that shatter lives; those who suffer must be cared for, and those who cause their suffering must be kept from doing further harm. But in all we do to help, the most loyal ally is truth. Truth brought to public light recruits the best of us to work for change. On the other hand, even the best intentioned 'noble lie' ultimately discredits the finest cause" (page 189).

Sommers describes herself as an equity feminist, which she contrasts with the gender feminists whose values were expressed during Saturday's march by its most celebrated leaders (for a brief explanation of the distinction between gender feminism and equity feminism, go here). It's Sommers' brand of feminism that I identify with. She rejects the argument of the gender feminists, that "women are trapped in a sex-gender system, that gender roles are arbitrarily defined, and [that] the purpose is to convince women that they are victims." Rather, she embraces the "classical feminism that got us the suffrage, that got us equity in education, that continues to get us equality of opportunity" (I read these comments in an interview, which I linked below). 

Sommers critiques the gender feminists for being anti-man as opposed to being pro-woman. It's an important distinction. The face of Saturday's march was primarily the face of the gender feminist, full of rage and contempt. The rage was ostensibly focused on the new president. But as many have rightly noted, the march was not solely about Donald Trump. He's a convenient target--easy to mock, easy to revile. But what else did this march represent? Which branch of feminism did it champion? Certainly not Christina Hoff Sommers' branch--the gender feminists despise her. Certainly not the New Wave Feminists' branch. Pro-life feminists were prohibited from sponsoring the march. 

Where does that leave women like me? Feminism is a huge, sprawling tree with lots of branches. Where do I fit on this great tree? I was chatting with a friend about all this, sharing some of these thoughts as they were evolving and worrying about going public on this blog. She challenged me to think about what I hoped to contribute to this discussion. "What brand of feminism would represent you," she asked. "Do you feel the need to march with other like-minded women? If so, why?" When I suggested that maybe Christina Hoff Sommers should update her book or even write a new book ("Reclaiming Feminism" would be the title), she said I should write my own book. 

I was chatting with another friend who read these thoughts as they were evolving. "How does someone like you," she asked, "someone who doesn't feel the need to denigrate men but who supports the fundamental principles of the feminist movement, an English teacher with a shy side that steers clear of mobs, how does someone like you get your voice heard? Keep writing, regardless of the negative response it may generate! Use Twitter and Facebook to encourage greater understanding of the difference between gender and equity! And write that book!" 

Well, I'm pretty sure that won't happen. But if I did write a book, I might start with where this blog entry began: When they go low, we go high. The "face of feminism" that was presented to the world in the aftermath of Saturday's march was, to be blunt, vulgar. But, as I said, that face doesn't represent me. And I suspect it doesn't represent a vast majority of women who call themselves feminists. I happen to know many women who marched on Saturday. These women are not vulgar. Quite the opposite. They are kind, loving, honest, intelligent, thoughtful, courageous, decent, classy people. 

I'm sure each of us has different issues we care about. Our politics or ideologies may differ. But if there's a shared commitment among us to show respect for people of different races, genders (including men!), religious views, educational backgrounds, political leanings--in other words, if there's a shared commitment to "go high"--then these are the women I would proudly march alongside on a cold January morning.

I didn't see their faces splashed on the front pages of newspapers or cluttering the news feeds of social media. But this is the face of feminism I'd like to reclaim. 

******** 

The Future of Feminism: An Interview with Christina Hoff Sommers (Scott London)