Is Google Making Us Stupid?

mjasay writes "Is Google making us stupid? Following a growing body of research within neuroscience, Carr argues that as we use the Web 'we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of those technologies.' This sounds great: Who wouldn't want to have the 'recall' capacity of Google? But, as Carr writes: 'The Internet promises to have particularly far-reaching effects on cognition. ... The Internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It's becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV. When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is recreated in the Net's image.' In other words, as we 'go online' in increasing numbers and to an increasing degree, are we losing our ability to think coherently and deeply, preferring instead to process byte-sized information quickly, regurgitate 140-character 'tweets,' and skim thought? Is the concern overblown, or are we becoming the Web that we created?"

Not Google.

[Slashdot Suxxors (1207082)]

The Internet in general will make us sutidp.

Re:Not Google.

[Bonobo_Unknown (925651)]

On the contrary the internet makes knowing 'facts' irrelevant, no one has to memorise information anymore. It's the process of information interpretation that is becoming more important than the knowing of information.
The internet is making us smarter.

Re:Not Google.

[Volante3192 (953645)]

I was agreeing with you until the last line. People that recognize it's the interpretation that is more important will be smarter, but from what I've seen it's the quick regurgitation that's the more prized ability (on the internet of course).

Re:Not Google.

[steelfood (895457)]

It applies in RL too. Part of socializing involves making references to both current events and common interests. Basically, it's worthwhile to be able to pull shakespeare quotes off the top of your head if you were out drinking with a bunch of playwrights.

Re:Not Google.

[BattleApple (956701)]

Socializing? Excuse me while I Google this word.

Ah, I see. You must be new here.

Both

[by Anonymous Coward]

It will make stupid people stupider, since they will be able to be even more intellectually lazy.

It will make smart people smarter, since they will have even better resources at their disposal.

To quote a familiar old monster from the swamp, "It only makes you more of what you really are."

Re:Both

[Gilmoure (18428)]

It only makes you more of what you really are.

Sounds like cocaine.

Robin Williams: It intensifies your personality. But what if you're an asshole?

Re:Both

[Ranger96 (452365)]

It only makes you more of what you really are.

Sounds like cocaine.

Robin Williams: It intensifies your personality. But what if you're an asshole?

That is a Bill Cosby quote (from "Himself") - looked it up on Google!

Re:Both

[zmollusc (763634)]

Hah! I was going to correct it too, but i used actual 'remembering'! Old School FTW!

Re:Both

[mysticgoat (582871)]

Good points.

Here's the old adage: You know how stupid the average person is? Statistically, half the people are more stupid than that.

Google might shape stupidity in new and different ways, just like literacy did back in an earlier day. But whether most people are saying "I heard it in the marketplace", "I read it in the newspaper", or "I googled it" doesn't much matter: the intelligence divide will continue to separate those who make decisions based on what some authorities say from those who make decisions through their own critical thinking.

The important thing is whether Google is becoming a catalyst for changing the compounds of administratium that we all have to deal with. The amount of administratium in the local universe appears to be constant for human scale time periods, but if Google is increasing the rate at which administratium oxides ("corporate rust") are converted to more reactive compounds of the element, then the upper quartile of intelligent people need to take notice, and make appropriate adjustments to the strategies and tactics that they use to guide the administrators.

Re:Both

[Daniel Dvorkin (106857)]

Here's the old adage: You know how stupid the average person is? Statistically, half the people are more stupid than that.

Statistically, this is true only if: (a) you're using "average" to denote median, rather than mean, or (b) intelligence follows a perfectly symmetrical distribution. Since "average" in casual usage generally denotes mean, and since many natural phenomena don't follow symmetrical distributions*, "half the people are stupider than average" probably isn't true.

You could have Googled this information, you know. ;)

*And yes, I know IQ is defined so that it follows a normal distribution -- thus it's symmetrical by definition. For this reason alone, it's unlikely to correspond to the actual distribution of intelligence in the population.

Re:Both

[locofungus (179280)]

Here's the old adage: You know how stupid the average person is? Statistically, half the people are more stupid than that.

Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf [apa.org]

"This study also enabled us to explore Prediction 3, that incompetent individuals fail to gain insight into their own incompetence by observing the behaviour of other people."

"[After seeing the answers of others] If anything, bottom-quartile participants tended to raise their already inflated self-estimates, although not to a significant degree"

The fundamental problem is that, even with the right answers in front of them, the incompetent are unable to distinguish the right from the wrong answers. What the internet brings to the incompetent is AN answer so now they THINK they know.

The competent can, of course, filter the wheat from the chaff.

I especially like the concluding remarks from that paper. "That worry is that this article may contain faulty logic, methodological errors, or poor communication. Let us assure our readers that to the extent this article is imperfect, it is not a sin we have committed knowingly."

Tim.

Re:Not Google.

[somersault (912633)]

Taking things to their logical conclusion:

User: Internet is down throughout the whole building!!! What will we do? Someone just asked me my favourite food, I can't remember, but I know it's on my Myspace!

Admin: Hang on a minute, I'll google to find out what we should do! *waits* *refreshes* *waits* gimme a minute.. google isn't loading.. oh. Shit.

Re:Not Google.

[Colonel Korn (1258968)]

I wouldn't say that the internet is making us stupider, but blogs are certainly making stupid people more visible.

Re:Not Google.

[beckerist (985855)]

I think of the internet as one gigantic brain. As your finger touches a hotplate for the first time, you mentally register "hey, that's hot, don't touch." As someone posts, say, a recipe online for the first time, the collective (or at least those who find that information relevant) will be able to recall it using its prefrontal cortex known as "Google" whenever they want. I think that we have much more access to knowledge now. That doesn't mean we're smarter, but that we can allocate our memory for what we feel is more relevant. In the process, we leave the (subjectively) less important material online where we can search any time we want.

Re:Not Google.

[mollymoo (202721)]

If people used the internet to gather information and then interpreted it to form an opinion it would indeed make us smarter. Judging by the comments here and at other similar places, people don't gather information and form opinions nearly as much as they skip the hard step and simply gather opinions and adopt and regurgitate them.

Re:Not Google.

[truthsearch (249536)]

I think you're basing this on only the people who post content online, like us. There are far more people who read slashdot than post comments to it, for example. So we don't really know if most people are thinking about and interpreting the content to form their own opinions.

Re:Not Google.

[lymond01 (314120)]

If I'm interpreting you correctly, you're saying Lord of the Rings was a better trilogy than the original Star Wars?

Re:Not Google.

[erudified (958273)]

I've been a lurker here for years (even before I registered an account) and have only posted a handful of times.

I enjoy the comments way more than the articles (which usually suck, tbh). For any article, there are almost always some extremely insightful comments, and for me, the interpretation of those is the whole point of the site.

Feynman and Vernor Vinge

[StCredZero (169093)]

Google can encourage mental habits where people can talk about subjects that they do not understand.

This was covered in one of Feynman's semi-autobiographical books, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! [amazon.com] There's a bit where he goes to Brazil. There, in the science classes, the professor would call on the students, and a student would stand and deliver the answer right out of the textbook. This bothered Feynman somehow, so one day he's looking out the window at the sun glinting beautifully off the bay, and asks the students to point out an example of polarized light. Reflected light is polarized, but the students were unable to use their memorized knowledge. Feynman's conclusion was that the science professors weren't teaching science, but public speaking and elocution.

Vernor Vinge also covers this in Rainbows End [amazon.com]. The protagonist, a revived Pulitzer-Prize winning poet from the old days, notes that the younger folks seemed to have an inability to really synthesize knowledge and understand anything, though they could instantly look anything up through their wearable computers and talk about it.

Re: Not Google.

[Alwin Henseler (640539)]

On the contrary the internet makes knowing 'facts' irrelevant, no one has to memorise information anymore.

You'd be right if the internet has an answer to every possible question, and the answers you find are correct. Neither of those is true.

In general you can find answers on the weirdest subjects, and in most cases what you find reflects reality, especially if you compare unrelated sources. But the internet is no more reliable than traditional mass media, it is wrong sometimes. Don't tell me you haven't ever read stuff on the internet that (from personal experience) you *know* to be incorrect. I know I have.

Personally, I prefer the internet to provide material, 'leads' if you will, but then do fact-finding by combining that info with your own knowledge and real-world experience. The internet may tell you if something is likely true, but before claiming to others it is, you should determine the facts yourself. The internet can help you with that, but does NOT hold all the answers.

Still need facts for context

[coyote-san (38515)]

You still need facts for context to understand the information google gives you, and as a first-order filter on whether it makes any sense. Chocolate chip cookies are often drunk with milk. Otherwise you can be distracted by irrelevant information. Or people trying to convince you to try shrimp cookies, perhaps because they're trying to sell you special shrimp cookie sheets.

Without that background, you'll run the risk of being a Chinese "invisible idiot" who is always out of sight, out of mind. Machine translation was first attempted in the 1950s.

One thing google is very good at is exposing you to new things that can be used to broaden your knowledge, so you get a cascading effect. But you have to be very careful -- there are eddies and cesspools of groups that create their own reality (Bush is one of the best presidentz evr!) and you need that outside context to see just how out of touch they are.

This problem has existed since the first libraries -- how could you ever be sure that the book you are reading isn't full of shit? -- but people were generally only exposed to stuff on the edge of their existing knowledge. Google makes pet cats good. It also exposes younger and younger people to information they don't have the experience to judge properly.

Re:Not Google.

[Drogo007 (923906)]

The internet is NOT making us smarter - it's simply making the underlying truth more evident:

The ability to successfully process and analyze information is far more rare than the ability to regurgitate facts. Now the the internet is decreasing the need to memorize mounds of facts, the people who got classified as smart simply because they were able to memorize gobs and gobs of useless facts are no longer as valued. So we're left with the subset who could actually process, analyze and synthesize information to begin with.

Re:Not Google.

[montyzooooma (853414)]

It's the Turing Test in reverse. Eventually we'll all be so dumb a machine can pass for human.

Re:Not Google.

[martinw89 (1229324)]

I'm sorry, I caught something about Google... Oh, and the Internet.

What?

Re:Not Google.

[MrMacman2u (831102)]

I disagree, we're getting stupidly... stupidest.... stupidmost... more dumber on our own.

'The Google' helps edumacate us dumberating peoples by allowing rapid look up of information that wasn't known.

As for 'reducing our recall capacity' I think that is a load of bull puckey. Not everyone wants their memory bogged down with trivial and possibly highly insignificant factoids.

I use Google search as an extremely high speed way to look for new information, confirm shaky knowledge and learn new things about a particular subject.

For example, I knew nothing about ATMega 8 Programmable Integrated Circuit microcontrollers a few days ago. I went straight to Google and now, 5 days later, I have ordered a handful of the PIC's in question, the parts to build my own in circuit programmer and have learned enough to begin to write my own programs in C and even a bit of assembler.

So instead of Google making us less intelligent, I would like to argue that by allowing a centralized source of not only common "minor" information that we refer to many times a day, but also being a nearly endless source of new information and knowledge, Google is actually helping us to become more intelligent and more efficient.

do spoons make us fat?

[stoolpigeon (454276)]

do cars make people drive drunk?
do purses make people thieves?

I think tools of any kind are just there, and it is our choices that determine what happens to us. They can be good or bad - depending on what we choose to do with them.

Re:do spoons make us fat?

[Rosco P. Coltrane (209368)]

I think tools of any kind are just there, and it is our choices that determine what happens to us. They can be good or bad - depending on what we choose to do with them.

Spoons make you fat if you use them to shovel tons food in your mouth. Likewise, if you use a calculator without at least a cursory check of the result, you'll likely end up with stupid results somewhere. And for google, nobody is stupid enough to trust them to give unbiased search results, so there's always an element of distrust that makes this tool, like all tools, something useful. It's only when you blindly trust google, or your calculator, or your spoon that you end up stupid (and fat).

Isn't this true of any technology?

[OzRoy (602691)]

It seems that every piece of technology gets accused of this.

Television, Calculators, Computers. All these things have been accused of making our children stupid. Now it seems it's Google's turn.

I'm sure there are more examples, but I can't think of them, and not sure what search terms to put into Google.

Re:Isn't this true of any technology?

[SputnikPanic (927985)]

Writing (if you're willing to consider writing as technology). The ancient Greeks (Homer era and before) were said to be able to perform what we today would consider absolutely incredible feats of memory.

Of course that's not to say that writing didn't come with its attendant benefits, too...

Re:Isn't this true of any technology?

[truthsearch (249536)]

Memory and intelligence are two very different things. A person who remembers a lot doesn't necessarily have the ability to put concepts together and form new ones. So I wouldn't say the ancient Greeks were smarter than us because of what we'd consider feats of memory.

Re:Isn't this true of any technology?

[NtroP (649992)]

Of course that's not to say that writing didn't come with its attendant benefits, too...

Exactly. Every new technology has trade-offs. I think we stick with and adopt technology that works, meaning that we consider the trade-offs worth it. That is not to say that we don't loose something valuable when an older form is replaced. Today, I hear from my distant family several times a day through email, twitter, and text messages. I feel really connected to them. I almost never get letters any more and don't really miss them. When I do get them, I love to read them. There is something about putting down your thoughts by putting pen to paper that gives it poignancy. Recently, my son was in bootcamp and could only receive snail-mail. I found that is was hard sitting down to write a letter at first, but I came away from it feeling strangely rewarded.

I think books are also going to go away (from the mainstream) in a similar way. I am a bibliophile. I love to read books, but even more, I love to hold a book in my hands, feel it's heft and smell it's pages. I have almost a hundred, leather-bound classics in my office library and there is nothing like sitting down to read one. But, to be honest, most of the "reading" these days is in the form of audiobooks on my iPhone. I'm too busy to have the time to just sit and read. However, I'm consuming more books than ever now that I can do two things at once. I listened to Fahrenheit 451 yesterday while mowing and raking my (2+ acre) lawn. My wife also reads out loud to me while I'm cooking and doing dishes (we're reading Little Brother by Cory Doctorow).

The danger I see is that we are more likely to get the "Cliff's NOtes" version of information off the internet. I can go online and find out enough about the story-line and plot of Fahrenheit 451 to carry on an intelligent dinner conversation, or recognize when it's being referenced in another book, but I'll never get the same depth of understanding, or come away with my own interpretation, unless I take the time to read the whole thing, unabridged, start-to-finish. Also, there are some books that are impossible to make into an audio book (think Flowers for Algernon). The only way to get the full impact is to see the words written on the page.

So, yes, I think something is lost in the trade-off. However, I think the the balance of benefit tips toward technology and the internet. I'd never have taken the time to run downstairs and look up how to spell Algernon from the book spine. A quick google search told me I had it right. I'm not going to page through my copy of Fahrenheit 451 to find a poignant passage to quote to my wife, I'll look it up on-line an read it to her from there. The internet makes information so accessible that we are more likely to take the time to look something up, rather than going my memory.

Also, I find myself stumbling on information I'd never have thought to look up while searching for other things. I can't count the number of times I've looked something up on Wikipedia and followed link after link down a rabbit-hole that lead me far from the initial article in what I call "stream-of-consciousness" surfing. This would never happen for me in a meatspace encyclopedia.

Technology also gives me things like spell check. This is very important for me. English is not my first language and I've never gotten the hang of spelling in it. Having the ability to type a word like it sounds and then pick the right spelling from a list is priceless (and save y'all from having to struggle through my attempts).

So, no, I don't think google is making us stupid, but I do mourn the things that will be lost. I'm sentimental about my old books and I'm afraid they will become relics and collector's items. But I'm not ready to live in the past (yet) and feel the benefits of the WWWeb and technology outweigh that which is lost.

Now get off my lawn!

Re:Isn't this true of any technology?

[Gandalf (787)]

It seems that every piece of technology gets accused of this.

That's because the constant is our stupidity, not the technology showcasing it.

Re:Isn't this true of any technology?

[ConceptJunkie (24823)]

That isn't a function of technology, it's a function of the child's environment. If learning is valued at home, the child will value learning. If it isn't, the child will not.

I am hardly one of those task-master parents who drive their kids to be overachievers at the expense of childhood... I'm more than happy to let them veg out in front of the GameCube, and other unstructured free-time activities that would be detrimental if done to excess. On the other hand, my wife and I are voracious readers and both committed, through a passion for knowledge, to continuing our educations in many formal and informal ways. Our kids can't help but be influenced by that environment, and I think it's been a big benefit to them.

People who meet our children frequently comment on how "smart" they are and how much they know, and yet they are subject to today's technology, with me being a hardcore computer nerd, probably more than the average children. However, they are picking up our habits of reading a lot, and we enjoy watching lots of documentary-type TV, which may be far from a rigorous syllabus, but is definitely better than the garbage most kids spend all their time watching. And don't get me wrong, I have nothing against fluff television in moderation (or even occasional immoderation, as we are all "Simpsons" fanatics and watch it way too much).

More importantly, we've managed to establish an environment where learning is part of every day life. When one of kids is curious, he or she will ask a question, and I've made a commitment always to take these questions seriously and provide real answers, if not immediately, in due time. My wife and I have our own interests which we are passionate about and we talk about these things... in my case, technology and science, whereas she is interested in history and other similar subjects. One of my favorite activities is when one of the kids asks, "Daddy, why does...?" and I don't know, so I say, "Let's find out", and in those cases Google is invaluable.

As an example, one of my kids has taken a huge interest in early film and television technology, as well as the actual content, and we've learned a lot of cool stuff together. I discovered tons of fascinating things I didn't know about the development of color film and the early days of electromechanical television... there were actually stations broadcasting in the 30's long before the CRT TVs were available to the public and NTSC was established, etc.

Another of my kids has a huge interest, and talent, in drawing and other artistic endeavors, and we do everything we can to encourage it by providing her with ample materials for creative work, as well as providing instruction (mostly informal through books, etc), and positive feedback. She devotes a significant time to her work, and has seen the benefits it produces.

However, in the environment we have at home, the kids are motivated to pursue these interests mostly on their own, and we as parents are more facilitators rather than full-time instructors. We've managed (somehow) to teach them how to learn stuff on their own.

So, like most things, Google can be a crutch, or it can even be a hindrance, but used correctly, like any technology, it can be a huge enhancement. I hardly consider myself to be some kind of miracle parent: our house is a mess, the kids can be very disorganized themselves, and we have our share of "issues", but I think the lessons we have gotten across will serve them fruitfully throughout their lives.

More appropriate question:

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

Is Slashdot making us stupid? We've lost the ability to come up with new jokes, instead preferring to spread the same old memes about hot grits, Natalie Portman being naked and petrified, welcome our new Google overlords, and saying that In Soviet Russia, YOU make Google stupid.

Oh well, I guess all are brain are belong to Slashdot.

wrong question

[circletimessquare (444983)]

correct question:

"are google making us stupids? is our childrens learning?"

Too late

[Kamokazi (1080091)]

Most people lost the ability to think coherently and deeply long before the Internet. It's just becoming far more apparent now that every idiot can set up a MySpace/Twitter.

The article title should read...

[elguillelmo (1242866)]

"Is the Internet making us even more stupid?"

On the contrary

[slyborg (524607)]

The expertise required to advance development in many fields is becoming more and more immense, and beyond what a human brain can easily absorb in a lifetime. The Internet allows the time to acquire information to be radically decreased, which will make it possible to continue the advancement of knowledge. It would still happen without it, but I think at a decreasing pace.

To "stand on the shoulders of giants" requires an ever longer ladder.

Do calculators make us worse at math?

[stealie72 (246899)]

This sounds so much like old teachers fretting over the use of calculators in math class.

In some ways, the scale of it is different, and it will be interesting to see how a kid born in 1995 thinks differently at 30 than one born in 1975, but still.

The net gives us all of the knowledge of humanity at our fingertips. It frees us from thinking about facts and gives us more time for abstract thinking and problem solving. At least for those of us who remember a time before google. Maybe a child born today really will be made dumb by google.

Well....

[Chairboy (88841)]

> Is Google Making Us Stupid?

I can't answer your question, my internet connection was down all morning.

On CNet

[truthsearch (249536)]

Ironically this article is on CNet, which is full of "byte-sized information", "regurgitated tweets", and "skim thought." Just another sensationalist article on a site that claims to be above the problem while actually promoting it.

Old people again

[Kohath (38547)]

Old people say "this new music or entertainment or technology is ruining the young". We fear this new thing.

If people were so smart before Google, they might remember when this was said about calculators and spell checkers and Elvis and moving pictures and electricity.

It's the other way around

[Chemisor (97276)]

> as we "go online" in increasing numbers and to an increasing degree, are we losing our ability to think coherently and deeply,

Oh no. It's the other way around: people who have no ability to think coherently or deeply are going online in increasing numbers and to an increasing degree.

> preferring instead to process byte-sized information quickly, regurgitate 140-character "tweets," and skim thought?

Now that there are so many people online who are of the aforementioned variety, a great deal of "information" is created by them. Is it any wonder we have to learn to skim? If we read it deeply, our minds would be fried.

Absolutely Not.

[d3ac0n (715594)]

The Internet does not make us stupid. Lazy, perhaps, but not stupid. Indeed, I would say that the increased MENTAL interaction it provides makes us, in many ways, smarter and more flexible.

Also, why the focus on the tools it replaces? Is this not the way of things? Tools are used until a better one comes along. Or would the Author have us all still using stone axes or flintlock rifles or riding horseback to get to work each day?

Ultimately, the Internet is a tool and simultaneously a source of entertainment. It expands our horizons and connects us to people in new and exciting ways. What's not to love?

Re:Absolutely Not.

[Quiet_Desperation (858215)]

I would say that the increased MENTAL interaction it provides makes us, in many ways, smarter and more flexible.

INTERTOOB CAT IS IN UR MIND, MAKIN IT FLEXY! LOL! KTHX!

Tools do not make one stupid

[Quickfingers (926214)]

Stupidity is the inability to correctly reason given a set of perceived facts. Acquisition of knowledge, no matter the source, can not produce stupidity; only complacence can do that.

NO. period. even comma. and some other marks.

[unity100 (970058)]

when we have increased tool usage, we have started to become a less strong specie as a result. whereas our ancestors were stronger, now modern man is by no means on par with wilderness standards when it comes to strength.

are we worse for it ? on the contrary, much better. see, we have a goddamn civilization going on here.

same goes for internet. we are creating a collective , all encompassing, participation based brain that can take over the menial parts of thinking process from us. even, due to automation, physical aspects of goods production too. what we will be doing in future will be creating. creating new ways and methods that we can practice through the world wide brain, internet, and whatever physical application/appliance we have attached to it, and the computers.

is this bad ? is this going to make people weak, lazy species that only eat and get fat ?

no. by nature, mankind cannot stop. if they are free of all worries, they go find something else to do. examine how high is the trend towards extreme sports in the last 30 years that wealth and comfort throughout the world increased in levels incomparable with last 3 century's standards. people are doing stuff that would be seen as crazy, lunatic, dangerous stuff 200 years ago, as sports today.

check scandinavian countries. they have a very high quality of life, they are insured to their toes, can live on unemployment money very comfortably. and are they sitting lazy and getting fat ? nay. there are a lot of open source projects being produced and released through scandinavian countries. they are many people involved in charity work in scandinavian countries.

thats the way of life. it gets easier, and as it gets easier mankind finds new stuff to do, never stays idle or lazy.

no worries.

Exactly!!!!

[Pedrito (94783)]

This is precisely how books made us stupid when the printing press came into being. Before that, everyone figured out everything on their own and they were all geniuses. Then the printing press came around and people said, "Hey, I don't have to learn anymore because all the information is in books now."

Sorry, but this is a pretty stupid line of reasoning in my mind. But then maybe that's because Google made me stupid.

That's not to say that the net might, to some degree, worsen the problem of ADD/ADHD which I think has been made worse by television already. I can't say for sure. But does it make us stupid? I don't think so.

I can't speak for others, but since the WWW came into being, and my access to information has increased, I've been able to learn more, faster, than I ever had the opportunity to learn before then.

Convergence only goes so far.

[Culture20 (968837)]

[The Internet is] becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV.

No, my calculator is my telephone, before that, it was my solar calculator, before that, it was my calculator-watch, before that, it was my battery calculator (Who really googles (424+26)/78 to get the answer?).

My telephone is my cell phone. Before that, it was nothing (no phone), before _that_, it was my land-line.

I love internet maps, because they do so much, but they don't beat my paper map when I'm stuck in the middle of nowhere.

The internet isn't my clock, my internal clock works pretty well. If I have to know the exact time, then I suppose the internet is my clock... sort of: I check my cell phone which is updated by the cell network, which is updated by some atomic clock over the internet (presumably), and I like that set up. It means I'm never more than a few milliseconds off what my servers think the time is.

Radio and TV? No, the Internet is no where close to being our Radio and TV. I think nothing will be like "our Radio and TV" ever again. It used to be everyone had a similar experience with local radio and TV, now people get to choose what they want when they want. If people switch to Internet viewing, it will be more like buying movies from the brick and mortar.

I suppose it is replacing our press and typewriter, but how does that make us dumber?

Is the concern overblown or are we becoming the Web that we created?

Overblown. I still remember as much as I used to, and now I have a way to find more information about things. Google expands the limits of our potential so that we _think_ we're dumber because we finally see a portion of the vastness of human knowledge and we realize we don't know jack in comparison. Was it Socrates or Plato that said something about that? Hold on, let me check Wikipedia...