Is Google Making Us Stupid? 636
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?"
On CNet (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Isn't this true of any technology? (Score:2, Informative)
They can't do basic math, they can't spell, then have terrible grammar, they can't form complete thoughts, they don't know how to extrapolate new information based on information they already have, they are incapable of doing multi-step problems, and they are proud of it.
There are individual exceptions, but my fiance is a teacher and the despairs over the level of remedial teaching she has to do before she can even START the current years material. It's a joy to her when she can find a student that doesn't have to be beat and prodded to learn. The kids are dumb.
Re:Both (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like cocaine.
Robin Williams: It intensifies your personality. But what if you're an asshole?
Re:Not Google. (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't so bad when it was just Wiki and Google, because those two required reading, and people with very short attention span would not reach the end of the misinformation before getting bored. Unfortunately, YouTube now makes it very easy for random Joe to spread utter bullshit and misinformation that can make people a little dumber every time. [youtube.com]
Re:Both (Score:5, Informative)
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:Feynman and Vernor Vinge (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Both (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:4, Informative)
Completly wrong. You *do* learn by memorization: the facts you memorize themselves. Probably what you meant is that you don't *understand* anything through memorization. But then, that's wrong too. What you memorize are the bricks which you will use to build your vision of a reality: how can you expect to have an understanding about, say, if a man going to the Moon is a big gest or not if you ignore if the Moon is near or far away? Remember that those that ignore their history are condemned to repeat it, so in order to avoid failures of past days you must remember (memorize) them. If you don't know the facts you are open for instance for a politician to distort your vision of reality, that's (one) way demagogy works. The more (relevant) facts you can recall from your memory on sport the more elements you will have to make your mind about an issue.
You your phrase must be rewritten this way: "You don't actually learn anything through *mere* memorization."
For the most part memorization is not the issue, but is a most needed precondition.
Re:Both (Score:2, Informative)
Wow. I think this is the first time I've ever used (non-trivial) math outside of school.
Re:Both (Score:4, Informative)