About these ads

Nick Carr: Google Making Us Stupid? How About Smarter?


The media or other technologies we use in learning the craft of reading play an important part in shaping the neural circuits inside our brains.

Nick Carr, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, The Atlantic, July/August 2008

Nick Carr has a really interesting piece in the current issue of The Atlantic (CNET coverage here). The premise of the article is that use of the web is possibly rewiring our modes of thinking. We’ve become much more adept at the light skimming of content than the deeper understanding of long thought pieces. If that’s the case, what does that mean mean for intellectual progress in the future?

The article is full of historical references (e.g. how Friedrich Nietzsche’s writing changed when he went to the typewriter) and scientific studies (e.g. the plasticity of the human brain enables us to adapt to new learning modes).

One area that Nick doesn’t talk about much is apophenia, which Maki on FriendFeed first alerted me to. According to Wikipedia:

Apophenia is the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data. The term was coined in 1958 by Klaus Conrad, who defined it as the “unmotivated seeing of connections” accompanied by a “specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness”.

Robert Scoble employs apophenia as part of his profession. In one of his posts, he says: “I like the noise. Why? Because I can see patterns before anyone else.”

In this way, the larger consumption of data in lightweight chunks can be thought to bring a new kind of intelligence to people. Your subconscious is collecting a series of signals along the way. At some point, all of this information lurking just below your accessible thought pops up, and you’re suddenly aware of an emerging dynamic.

I really like this idea. And it fits with how we pick up information ourselves in the physical world. You don’t stop and ask people what they’re talking about on the street. But you may pick something up as you listen in to their conversations. You may not read the planning commission report, but you see how development is progressing in your town based on the construction you see.

I’ll contrast apophenia with traditional learning, in which a person can go deep with the thinking of a few selected masters in a field. But I draw this contrast not to dismiss traditional learning. Not at all. Understanding things based on a deeper reading of learned intellectuals and practitioners is a vital part of learning.

I hope Nick is wrong about losing our ability to sit through a longer piece. I haven’t lost that – I read his article twice this weekend.

If we can add a new mode of learning via apophenia to our traditional forms of undersatnding concepts, we’re all going to be smarter in the long run.

*****

See this item on FriendFeed: http://friendfeed.com/search?q=%22Nick+Carr%3A+Google+Making+Us+Stupid%3F+How+About+Smarter%3F%22&public=1

About these ads

About Hutch Carpenter
Senior Consultant for HYPE Innovation (hypeinnovation.com)

6 Responses to Nick Carr: Google Making Us Stupid? How About Smarter?

  1. Todd Levinson says:

    This kind of makes sense, except for the fact that Robert Scoble probably doesn’t randomly add feeds to his feed reader, and he also reads the data in constructed, ordered sentences. So, the information is neither random, nor meaningless, if that is even a correct description of apophenia. (i have no idea)

    Possibly, what Carr may be addressing, from a nueroscience perspective, is just this kind of use of surface level data and how it might affect the way we think long term.

  2. Todd – Scoble follows over 21,000 people on Twitter. He follows over 2,700 people on FriendFeed (where he is a little more selective). There’s plenty of stuff coming from those subscribers that falls outside his range of interests. Basic human unpredictability will ensure that.

    And yes, Carr is addressing biological changes that might occur in people.

  3. Yes, but being outside someone’s range of interests does not make it random or meaningless. Think about the way those feeds and follows were collected. He probably didn’t randomly search Twitter an add people, he followed someone he knew, then followed the people they were following.

    So, I think the way you use apophenia is kind of incorrect, and I think that is an example of what Carr is talking about, and concerned about.

  4. Noel Morales says:

    Todd – Scoble just added whomever added him. Without any filter whatsoever. To my knowledge, the number of people he actually sought out were probably very few, his friends and family. He’s following me right now, and I don’t even know the guy.

  5. diggma says:

    thx for share… great post…

  6. Pingback: We're not stupid. We just find it difficult to focus sometimes… | Tiger Two

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 668 other followers

%d bloggers like this: