Does the Internet Make Humanity Smarter Or Dumber? 282
Nemilar writes "The Wall Street Journal is running a pair of articles asking whether the Internet is making humanity smarter or dumber. The argument for smarter is that the Internet is simply a change in the rules of publishing, and that the bad material is thrown away; the second story critiques the 'information overload' aspect of the Internet, claiming that we have traded depth of knowledge for velocity and span. What do you think? Does the Internet make you stupid?"
Re:Of course it can... (Score:5, Interesting)
The TV makes people (especially kids) dumb, because it is an impoverishment of the senses: Without touching, smelling and hearing (signal is not timed correctly) the brain development is stunted. The brain always learns, but we offer it shit. Ask a neuroscientist like Manfred Spitzer [google.com].
The Internet (as a media) is great at distributing information, and helps freedom of speech, protection against regimes&suppression.
But don't overlook that information is not produced on the Internet. Anyone who want to contribute something new, will perform a lot of "offline" thought and work first. Progress doesn't come from the thousand monkeys on a typewriter.
Don't just take them away, replace them with some better use of your time.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Re:Intelligence is tweaked not obtained. (Score:2, Interesting)
After watching the coverage of the Israel/Gaza situation and the Terror Flotilla this weekend... it definitely makes people dumber.
There is no sense of scale and no memory of past events any more. In January 2009, the UN security council passed a resolution calling for ALL nations to step up efforts to prevent Hamas from smuggling weapons into Gaza. The sum total of responsibility for this, sadly, was passed on to Egypt and Israel, who dutifully stepped up their blockades and inspections (Egypt actually closed Rafah ENTIRELY, which made Israel the de-facto only option for transferring aid in).
Likewise, millions of nincompoops with no clue about actual international law hear a bunch of people screaming about how the interdiction took place in so-called "international waters", notwithstanding every precedent (from the Council of Paris through the Geneva Conventions and onwards) explicitly saying that a blockade-running ship may be apprehended outside territorial waters, ESPECIALLY if they are publicly announcing their intent to run the blockade.
It seems that the collective memory of the world lasts only a few days, and then past events are forgotten, while the lies of violent terrorist front groups like the IHH are accepted as "facts" by so-called "journalists" who do absolutely zero research and are nothing but doorstop-IQ losers who parrot whatever they are told.
Re:Intelligence is tweaked not obtained. (Score:3, Interesting)
To me, what led those people to do media multitasking in the first place?
They did. They chose to do it. Information technology gave them a choice -- a freedom -- and they did not use it responsibly and through no one's fault but their own. You can give people powerful tools but it's ultimately up to them to use them responsibly. Right now here is what I'm hearing, "I'm stupid and distracted ... it must be that latest technology's fault like TV and gaming and now the internet. I'm the victim and don't have to take responsibility for my actions." If I give you a nail gun and wood and tell you to build a house but instead you discover that shooting at cans with the nail gun and burning the wood in a bonfire is more entertaining than shelter ... who's fault is that?
Something as empowering as the internet should not be faulted for this.
Re:I think.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Presumably people are spending some time thinking about what they look up, and following hyperlinks to read more about the subject.
Due to the inconvenience, without the Internet, they might not have looked up any information in the first place, and gone with a hunch, or whatever they vaguely remember.
So the internet allowed them to learn a bit about a subject they wouldn't have even bothered to look for information on, otherwise
It emphasises our weaknesses (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it *can* be a good thing. The Encyclopedia of Life seems to be shaping up well. Wikipedia I think has been neutral. But more often to not people use things like Facebook which is nothing but a waste of time.
Stupid and pointless articles (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, nothing really makes you smarter or dumber. While your capability to learn may change over time, in general a specific type of media will not impact this ability, unless we're talking about parking young children in front of a TV and ignoring them, which is another issue.
The internet, like TV, books and magazines, radio, etc does not affect your intelligence. What you get out if it is based on how you decide to use it. Spending hours on Facebook playing farmville is a huge waste of time, just like watching American idol, etc.
Using the internet for other things such as looking up how to do something or a particular fact can increase your knowledge, as can watching a show about history or science on TV.
Personally I think the WSJ has gone significantly down hill since News Corp bought it...
Some problems (Score:5, Interesting)
The first article doesn't address the notion that these changes in thought patterns could lead to greater intellectual abilities down the road. The author says:
but maybe that's subject to change over time, as more and more humans don't pay deep attention. Or maybe we will adapt to be able to more easily pay attention deeply to the most important details.
Additionally, even if that doesn't happen (soon, or ever), maybe humanity as a whole is better served this way. Maybe we don't need everyone to be a deep thinker. Maybe we can benefit from a large segment of people who can think quickly, but not as deeply.
In other words ... Idiocracy is funny, but unlikely. We will adapt and move forward over time, as we always -- given sufficient time -- have.
Same shit, different medium... (Score:3, Interesting)
1565: books have to much information, this is too much for the human brain...
same shit, different medium - there will always be reactionist... move along, nothing to see here...
Comparisons (Score:5, Interesting)
Let us consider two cases:
What have we gained as a direct result of these technologies? What have we lost?
Is it worth it?
I remember being told to play outside all day - back when we could do that without sunscreen and without getting burned. It used to be that I had to make a plan and stick with it if I was going to meet a friend - I couldn't call them when I got to the place and THEN figure out where they were waiting. I didn't used to be a slave to the byzantine contract or incessant needs of my portable phone (that probably isn't giving me cancer). I imagine libraries were a lot more popular, living rooms were centered around conversations or musical instruments, and if you couldn't sleep you could listen to live performances on the radio. To name just a few examples.
What have we gained? Well, the space on my desk that used to be for a rolodex/business cards is now taken up with Arduinos & servos. My girlfriend sits up in bed and watches Glee on her iPad instead of finishing her cross stitch. Pinging the hivemind to solve a technical query is pretty damn awesome. uh... everything else I can think of is probably a negative.
So while I haven't definitively made up my mind, I feel like the evidence I am aware of leans towards "worse off".
Re:Of course it can... (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you really procrastinating? Would you have done ten minutes of work if you hadn't spent ten minutes on Slashdot?
In a more general sense: do you work as efficiently during your second and third hour at work as you do during your sixth and seventh?
We have this weird obsession with working when you're at work (I know that sounds silly, but still) - you simply can't work full blast all the time, and it's weird that management insists that people pretend they do for eight, nine, ten hours a day.
Honestly, I think that's at least part of the reason why we've seen such an increase in productivity since the advent of computers - they provide a great way to pretend you're working, so you can take a break and work more efficiently when you do actually work. I'm not even trying to be funny with this comment; I seriously do think that the increase in ability to occasionally goof off without repercussions has increased total efficiency.