Nicholas Carr makes a significant point in his article about internet changing how our minds work. He says that constantly reading online reduces how much reading the brain can tolerate. People skim articles or books because they think reading them is too much work. Carr goes on to say that our brains have started working like computers instead of like mental clocks. The invention of these new technologies are shaping our brains differently, and causing them to adapt to the new style. It is also mentioned in the article that someday our brains might be turned into living computers. According to Carr, the creators of Google would like to expand their search engine to a living machine that connects to our brains.
I only agree with a part of what Carr says in his article. It is true that I find myself skimming boring articles on the web. When I was looking for French articles this summer for homework, I even noticed that a lot of the articles were only a small paragraph long, stating only the main points of the subject. I also realized that when I am reading books and a huge paragraph of unnecessary detail comes up, I usually look ahead a few paragraphs and sometimes a few pages to see how long it is. Then I skim the boring paragraphs to get to the good ones where the story continues. Internet also flashes advertisements and other pictures every few seconds which has reduced our attention spans a little bit. People like seeing action and flashy images, especially in movies such as “Moulin Rouge”.
Reading online and surfing the web does not reduce the amount of books we read in my opinion, even if I do skim sometimes. I love reading and I don’t think the internet would ever take that away from anyone who has a love for books. I usually only skim books if I am rereading them, or if I don’t have much time to read them. Carr also says that our brains have the power to reprogram themselves. He may be using it to prove his point, but I will throw it right back at him. If our brains can change, than even if they adapt to computer technology, they can change again. The Printing Press proves this because when books started becoming more popular, our minds changed to adapt and think through books. Well now is the time for our minds to think through technology such as the internet, which may not be a bad thing.
This article woke me up a little. I had noticed before that I did not always read texts thoroughly, but I didn’t realize it was as bad as Carr says. I do not think that this change will necessarily be bad. It could prove helpful in many ways.
Thanks Amelie. The more I read of your post, the more interested I became. Possibly because it addressed the part of Carr’s argument that I find the most interesting, your third paragraph interested me the most. I don’t know exactly what you mean by “think through technology,” but I do agree that we must consider how our brain’s supposed malleability relates to Carr’s thesis. I also agree that Carr’s article makes me recall what Bradbury feared about “Moulin Rouge.” You are the first to identify any relationship to Bradbury and Fahrenheit 451. In my mind, the issues Carr addresses relate to Bradbury's vision of the future just as much, if not more, than Huxley’s. As a note of advice, you might endeavor to dig a little deeper into the text in future posts. I agree with all of your observations, but I would be more convinced if you showed a slightly greater understanding of Carr’s argument.
ReplyDelete