As its title suggests, the book also takes a stand on whether such technology imprisons or liberates its users. But, his own criticism is superficial and misses the humanizing impact of Web 2. Despite the title, the article is not specifically targeted at , but more at the cognitive impact of the and. In his analysis of how Google is changing the way we think, Carr does a good job of illustrating how various technologies throughout human history, like the mechanical clock, have altered the way we perceive and understand the world around us. Therefore, Carr purports that the neural circuitry shaped by regular Internet usage can also be expected to be different from that shaped by the reading of books and other page-based written material.
He also states that the internet is negatively affecting the way we read and write, and is also having an effect on the way we process information. Place of Publication Not Identified, Book On Demand Ltd, 2012. Simple tools and services that might add a little depth and traction to its usefulness as an arena of problem-solving. Electricity is warming up the earth and that's bad. I agree with Carr, there is no question that our mental behaviors are changing.
From clocks to computers the use of electronics and tools is occurring every day in almost all situations. Maybe instead of blaming google we should start teaching students in k-12 how to properly evaluate info we find through google instead. According to Ben Worthen, a business technology blogger, the growing importance placed on the ability to access information instead of the capacity to recall information straight from memory would, in the long term, change the type of job skills that companies who are hiring new employees would find valuable. In qualifying his point, Carr draws attention back to the fact that his article is more of an opinion piece than an empirically justified argument. Like Nicholas Carr states in his article, people are no longer interested in deep reading. Tools that might help turn quasar-levels of gushing opinion into something like discourse.
Question is, do you get off Google or stay on all the time? There is an art to them, and I am enriched for knowing what they hold inside. In his theory that Google or the internet in general has brought on a new type of reading called skimming. But we also need the Dance of Shiva, destroying the insipid and vicious and untrue and stupid, to make room for more creativity! I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I would give it 3. It seems to be why many students well, not just students find it difficult to write a paper longer than five pages. Another thing I found interesting was his stance on the movie.
The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. This is still true, but our surroundings have grown. Since the issue that Nicholas Carr brings up is very significant, he uses very meticulous instances to illustrate his way of thinking. Out of all this ruction, just one thing made it possible for us to advance, ensuring that the net effects would be positive.
For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind. The idea that Nietzsche's writing style had changed for better or worse when he adopted the typewriter was disputed by several critics. Carr shows that he is upset on how this is happening, and he finds that he isn't the only one, but others were feeling the same way. A few of us have asked students in Writing and Rhetoric to analyze this essay over the past few years, and there are plenty of examples in their eportfolios. For a readership of bibliophiles, this is treason. But what matters is stepping back from yet another tiresome dichotomy between fizzy enthusiasm and testy nostalgia.
He identifies with the computer within the scene instead of the robotic human and appears to imply that the web will cause us to become more machine like instead of machines. I also bet they can tackle the most complex of problems and come up with creative, intelligent, and working solutions. This decrease in attention span may be a bad sign, or it may be a change for the better, allowing us to take in more information in a shorter period. In these introductory paragraphs, Carr effetively balances his own personal experiences and anecdotes with the perspectives of experts in the field and a pertinent study about how computers affect research habits. The Web is where we look for knowledge that usually exists not in final, authoritative, single-author text blocks but in the aggregate of wisdom from many sites. Is it generated by our recently developed weakness for information snacks? I think I know what's going on. What is worrying and disturbing is that skimming has grown to become our dominant form of thought Carr, 2010.
Carr conveys the thought that people who use the Internet on a daily basis tend to have a lack of concentration and lack of contemplation. So, yes, you should be skeptical of my skepticism. And, academics often express the same concerns Carr doesin his Atlantic article. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski. Nor is it easy to argue that printed squiggles have some privileged channel to thought. People lack the attention span and patience to sit and read through an entire article or chapter because we are used to the internet giving us shortcuts. If Clay Shirky revels in the blogosphere, can he point to anything that it actually accomplishes? In addition, I will be analyzing Carr's method using the Toulmin model; where I will break down his claims, data, warrants, backing and rebuttals that he may use through out his article.