Nicholas Carr Foresees Brains Optimized For Browsing 110
Posted
by
timothy
from the think-different dept.
from the think-different dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In the next decade, our brains are going to become optimized for information browsing, says best-selling author Nicholas Carr. According to Carr, while the genetic nature of our brains isn't being changed by the Internet at all, our brains are adapting 'at a cellular level' and are weakening modes of thinking we no longer exercise. Therefore, in 10 years, if human beings are using the Internet even more than they do today, says Carr, "our brains will be even more optimized for information browsing, skimming and scanning, and multitasking — fast, scattered modes of thought — and even less capable of the kinds of more attentive, contemplative thinking that the net discourages."" While Carr isn't making a case for Lamarckian evolution, the argument here seems weak to me; the same kind of brain change could be attributed to books, or television, or the automobile, couldn't it?
Nicholas Carr Foresees Obvious: (Score:5, Insightful)
weak analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
The counterargument here seems weak to me; books, television, and the automobile aren't the same as the web, so the learned change wouldn't be of the same kinds.
Comeon guys (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:re (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, Lamarckian evolution involves inheritance, whereas the author is talking about learned/conditioned behavior in individuals. The brain is plastic. It very definitely does adapt to do well whatever you do often.
In my experience, highway driving is great for contemplation. City driving not so much. YMMV... :)
Re:re (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that to be expected? Any time you look for physical brain changes from years of practiced learning, you find it. That is just what the brain does.
also cabbies are a special case, most people drive the same repetitive routes over and over, route planning is hardly needed after you have settled in to one or two ways of getting to work and home.
Evolution != genetics (Score:4, Insightful)
Describing evolution strictly in terms of DNA isn't exactly "wrong"... but it's comparable to describing astronomy strictly in terms of Newtonian physics: perfectly good most of the time, but there are "edge" cases (such as objects approaching the speed of light, or certain species of intelligent primate with advanced communication skills) where it doesn't quite explain what's happening. To fully understand and explain hominid evolution, you also need to look at the linguistic/educational channel through which certain non-genetic traits are passed from generation to generation.