digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Is Google Making Us Stupid? - Nicholas Carr

theatlantic.com — The Web has been a godsend to me as a writer. Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mjasay, on 06/10/2008, -6/+1See also some commentary on CNET at http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9962935-16.html.
    • sjl127, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4Anything use improperly makes us stupid. Google's wonderful, I use it to be more productive. But, I know how to use it to find exactly what I'm looking for. Just like a card catalog.
  • greytfriend, on 06/10/2008, -4/+21I've always been a headline skimmer, first paragraph of the newspaper. I've actually found that I've been reading much more of the story and retaining more since I started using Digg. Maybe because I'm finding more that really is of great interest to me. I certainly have been reading less fiction since my digg addiction began, but I will always have at least 2 books going at any time.
    • sjl127, on 06/10/2008, -4/+6What I like about digg is that I can read what is on everyone else's mind - like having your finger on the pulse of society.
      • itsthebrod, on 06/10/2008, -0/+24The pulse of Digg is in no way, shape, or form indicative of the pulse of society in general.
      • lolinyerface, on 06/10/2008, -0/+13Sometimes its the pulse of stupidity...but you gotta take what you can get.
    • asskicker32, on 06/10/2008, -0/+7I looked at this and said "I dont do this, Im a good reader". Then I skimmed the article and gave up after three or four paragraphs.
  • tattertech, on 06/10/2008, -2/+126Too long to read.
    • sceptic101, on 06/10/2008, -1/+6because of this comment im not going to open it, google would never hurt me anyway.
    • Crozz, on 06/10/2008, -1/+7I just read the headline. then wall of text
      • rakous, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4I didn't read the article but there is a picture if that motivates you.
    • whoreable, on 06/10/2008, -0/+15I think you meant TL;DR
    • catkillcurious, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3Read the article and you'll smirk at your initial comments.
  • laola1, on 06/10/2008, -1/+68Didn't finish the article... does this prove his point?
    • Asrrin29, on 06/10/2008, -5/+14no because he keeps reiterating the same point over and over again. He purposefully laid out his writing to make you NOT want to finish reading to make you think, "gee, I can't even read a long article about not being able to read long articles."
      Buried as inaccurate, I have a whole library of books that I have read, still read, and will continue to read because I love reading. Everything from science fiction, fantasy, self-help, biography, classic literature, science texts. This guy is just upset because he's addicted to the internet and let it develop into a bad habit. Maybe it's just the way his generation processes information compared to mine. But people who I know who love to read, still read, and are avid users of the internet.
    • nmc9, on 06/10/2008, -3/+7Ditto. I got to the bottom of the page and saw that I was on 1 of 4 and I was like, "You've gotta be kidding me." I can read long articles on the internet, only ones that interest me though. Same with books, there's no point reading something I don't like so I don't force myself to, but I can still be taken away for hours on a great book.
  • cwazidorse, on 06/10/2008, -11/+21article was written by some cranky old academic who just realised he wasted the last 50 years. google forever.
    • cJw314, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3"google forever"

      bumper sticker nomination
    • Jsmuli2, on 06/10/2008, -3/+4Seriously, I read this yesterday and that's all I could think of. This ***** is just cranky because now that information is easier to obtain all his hard research tactics have been made obsolete.

      There is nothing wrong with having information on just about everything at your fingertips.
  • Heretushi, on 06/10/2008, -6/+51Google does not make people stupid. The way YOU use Google may turn YOU stupid.
    • ElbertF, on 06/10/2008, -2/+7They said the same thing about the calculator. Making things easier doesn't necessarily make us stupid, it enables us to learn new things. Google gives us access to tons of information and that's a good thing. I hate topics like these, stop whinging.
      • thorstrongstone, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4I, for one, REFUSE to stop whinging.
      • homah, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4The calculator and Google can both be detriments to learning when used improperly. Many kids don't develop solid number sense because they turn to the calculator too soon. Many people on the internet skim an article and proceed to launch into a tirade against someone with the opposite opinion, despite the fact that neither person has even a cursory knowledge of the subject. They are good things for people who use them as tools, not crutches, but all too many people don't do that.
        • ElbertF, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3You can say that about books too. Instead of learning the meaning of every single word you can just look it up in a dictionary when you need it.

          Blame the mentality, not the medium.
        • eviltandem, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4What? In today's world the ability to do the math a calculator can do is just pointless. I can fill my brain with more useful information than multiplication tables.

          Computers are inherently good at what people are inherently bad at, and vice versa. The ability to function in the next century is based on your capacity to employ these technological tools to problems, not write memorize useless information that any calculator can do.

          In a few seconds I can even google the functions and math equations to mimic what the calculator is doing. Knowing HOW certain things work is the old way of doing things. We simply know too much about too many things for any 1 person to meaningfully understand it all.

          Much more valuable to know how to get the information you want from a computer, than try to make your brain behave like an inferior one...
        • sims12345, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1@eviltandem: I couldn't agree more, well said
    • AngelaQ, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2This is so true. I now have immediate access to the information I need when I need it, but I see all around me people who can't even learn to use Google properly. These are people who would never have read anything before, either. But now, thanks to the internet, they can make their ignorance known to millions of people.
    • MisterNoMoniker, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4The article isn't really even talking about Google, it's just an attention grabbing title.
      It's a shame really. It is a really interesting article about the brain and its adaptation to technology, but now it's tied to a mess of unrelated comments like 'no wai google rulz'.
  • Thrilltone, on 06/10/2008, -16/+3No, Google is making us smarter.
    Video games are making us stupider.
    • cwmather, on 06/10/2008, -1/+3Stupider? Really?
      • Thrilltone, on 06/10/2008, -2/+4Yes, really.
        It's an adjective.
        Look it up after you reach the next level.
        You can find it on Google.
        • cwmather, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1I stand corrected. I dugg you down just the same though.
        • Thrilltone, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1I dugg you up. I'm ornery like that.
  • ThankTheCheese, on 06/10/2008, -2/+111"Why should I remember anything if I can just look it up?"
    - Albert Einstein

    Not having to waste time memorising or finding something we may or may not need increases productivity and helps us progress as a civilisation.
    • gummih, on 06/10/2008, -1/+9That may be true but I prefer this saying.

      "Why should I know anything when I can just make ***** up?"
      - gummih
    • FairDinkumMate, on 06/10/2008, -1/+3The problem with your statement is the "may or may not" bit. Every time you have to go back & look something up again because you don't remember it, you are being unproductive. I guess it depends on how much longer it takes you to memorise something as opposed looking it up. Personally I think we tend to memorise things that we feel are important or emotive.
      But there are also the things that were drummed into us in high school that we've never used since which were probably a waste of time. For example, I can't remember the last time I needed to do a quadratic equation, but I can sure as hell remember the formula to work one out!
      • eviltandem, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2... once you factor in the human mind's tendency to forget and "remember" things wrong, I think you over-value human memory.

        We need to memorize certain things. Like the alpha-numeric system, reading, and communication in general.

        Much better to be able to quickly get any information you need, than try to waste lots of time "remembering" facts you may or may not use, and may or may not remember correctly when you use them...
      • Terr01, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1"Every time you have to go back & look something up again because you don't remember it, you are being unproductive."

        If you needed to look it up *that often*, and it were something you *could* remember, you'd end up memorizing it naturally.

    • Terr01, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Exactly.

      The important stuff is knowing the general information, and the keywords or techniques necessary to get more information.

      Take Calculus. Unless you use it daily, it's not important to remember every rule or trick. But what you need to remember is what can be done, roughly what a certain process (e.g. "The Chain Rule") was called, and where to re-acquaint yourself with the material. Or history. I don't need to know the exact date of the Gettysburg address, but I need to know the general facts and how to use those general facts to get more data. Or for physics/chemistry, Avogadro's number. I don't have it handy, but I know it has to do with a the number of particles related to molecular weight, so that if that kind of problem comes up, I know where to go for the information to solve it.
    • RSKueffner, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2For example spelling civilization?
      • FairDinkumMate, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Obvioiusly the stupidity of your comment has nothing to do with Google...

        You just made Terr01's point. There is no need for you to know how to correctly spell each word in British English, just that it exists & where to find the correct spelling if required!

        Here's a tip for you - American English uses the letter 'z' a lot where British English uses 's'. This is one case where Google could easily have you made you smarter!

        eg. Realise, memorise, civilisation
  • cwazidorse, on 06/10/2008, -2/+12google made my degree so much easier
  • chaos7, on 06/10/2008, -3/+10making us smarter
  • corryface, on 06/10/2008, -6/+3google is there because searching through reams and reams of ***** in a library is no fun what so ever. googles convenience is far more appealing than searching through books for about three hours.
    • Coffeedemon, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2Aside from well known facts and links to sites where you can buy discretely identified items, google is no better than any other "source" and if you don't know what you're looking for the number of results it returns can render the tool damn near useless.
      • Gamer2k4, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1> google is no better than any other "source" and if you don't know what you're looking for

        That's why most people know what they're looking for before they initiate a search for it. And when you DO know what you're looking for, Google is much easier to use and access then encyclopedia texts.
      • eviltandem, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2It's completely better than any other source. The computer does the "searching" for me. I could spend hundreds of hours scouring other sources for relevant information and still not find all the things google will give me in seconds.

        Now instead of wading through endless miles of information looking for relevant things to me, I wade through relevant things for me looking for what I want.

        It's better in every way information cataloging and searching can be...
  • Fullvinyl, on 06/10/2008, -1/+18No, because there are people with whom I work that are too stupid even to use Google for basic research. Stupidity makes people stupid, end of story.
    • Masefield, on 06/10/2008, -0/+6I completely agree with you. They'd rather waste time wondering where to search. Then, they look at you like a god when you type a few keystrokes and present them with the answer. Sometimes I feel as if I giving fire to the cavemen.
  • jimbruno, on 06/10/2008, -3/+19This is a stupid debate. Having facts at our fingertips doesn't make us dumber - it allows us more time to formulate our own ideas out of what already exists rather than spending stupid hours figuring out the foundations.
    • RavagesOfTime, on 06/10/2008, -1/+6Than why do you see so many people on the Internet who do nothing but post the quotes and independent thoughts of someone else?
      • Zephik, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4Exactly. Its a bit like; "Why do we learn math when we can just use a calculator?"

        Because actually learning it makes you smarter.

        • eviltandem, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2lol. Learning to use the calculator makes you smarter. Learning to reproduce, slowly, what a calculator does makes you dumber.

          To me this is like saying, "using a hammer to beat nails into a board means you don't understand how hard it is to nail something into a board using your hand."

          While true, I think the value of a hammer is that it does this task better than I can. What's important is I understand how to use the hammer, not the physics of nails penetrating different materials.

          Being able to beat a nail into a board, and bloodying my hand while doing it, does not make me "smarter". To me, the guy standing there with bloody hands and a hammer sitting right next to him is stupid, not smart.
    • FairDinkumMate, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1Does google provide FACTS?

      This is my big issue. Pick a topic & I can guarantee I can find both sides of the debate listed via google. However, finding the FACTS that support these results is a whole different ballgame.
      I think the next generation will be better, but we grew up basically being taught print media consisted of fiction & non-fiction & the publishers of both were generally kind enough to let us know which was which. The MSM seems to me to have lowered their own standards in the past few years as well, but fortunately nowhere near as low as some blogs or interested party web sites. I think global warming is a great example of this. 20 years ago public opinion would have followed that of the majority of scientists because the MSM would have reported that. Now however, there are thousands upon thousands of sites disagreeing with the whole idea of global warming. No FACTS(or a subjective selection of them or worse still made up ones!) & a lot of people still intuitively believe some or all of it because it's in print!
      • DraxusD, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1(Wikipedia + Actually checking references) > Google
        • FairDinkumMate, on 06/10/2008, -1/+3I agree. But when people are just trying to get information for their own curiosity, I doubt many actually do this.
          Add in to this the fact that a lot of people aren't searching just for information, but specifically for information that supports their already formed opinions. Once they find that, they will never take the time to check sources that may not actually agree with them.

          This is why I think the MSM has gotten a lot worse over the past 10 years. People have stopped listening to news & opinion that challenges their already held views. Fox News is the epitome of it(& most widely attacked), but MSNBC, CNN & the others do their own fair share of slanting information.

          I mostly watch BBC now for news, but they have a presenter that continually refers to 'Asia' as a 'country' which drives me nuts!
      • eviltandem, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1It's sort of the point of the system. Page-range should mean that the first few page's google returns should be most relevant.

        the idea is it has fact checking built into it already...
  • o0joshua0o, on 06/10/2008, -2/+42What is your definition of "smart"? If you think it's the ability to memorize data, then my USB thumbdrive is extremely smart. I think that intelligence has more to do with being able to analyze, integrate, and interpret data in a meaningful way, something that people with easy access to data can do much more efficiently. Hence, Google is making us smarter.
    • Goombellaofgoom, on 06/10/2008, -2/+3But why bother to interpret the data yourself? Someone "smarter than you" has already done it. Just read his/her article (also found via Google), and assume they're correct. Or, if you want to be balanced, read several peoples' articles and choose the one you like best.

      /sarcasm
    • Zephik, on 06/10/2008, -3/+2My definition of "smart";

      Applied knowledge. ...also known as; Intelligence.

      So to me, the more I know, the more intelligent I am because the more knowledge I can use to apply to whatever may come up in everyday life.

      You learn math = Knowledge

      You use math because you learned it = Intelligence

      The more I learn, the more I can use, which means the smarter I am.
      • eviltandem, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4Which happens by being exposed to lots of information easier.

        Google speeds up and enhances this process. Less time wasted finding the information, more time learning and applying it.
  • addicted2flicks, on 06/10/2008, -2/+1I think the only thing that can make people stupid is ignorance. Perhaps the ignorance of new technology?
  • zadadka, on 06/10/2008, -0/+18Interesting article ...which I initially "power-browsed".

    My own thoughts are that it is symptomatic of society in general.
    Things are increasingly at a headlong rush; the need, and importantly, the expectation, of immediacy....fast foods, immediate transactions, appetites sated at the speed of a click.

    As the article points out, as workers, we have long been expected to provide "maximum speed, maximum efficiency, and maximum output", and in turn, we seek it ourselves.

    The downside is the reaction when it's not immediate, from striking the monitor when a webpage is slow to load, cussing the eBay seller who doesn't ship quickly enough, right up to the ultimate extention of that frustration in road-rage.

    I've no answers, just the observation.


    • cwmather, on 06/10/2008, -1/+6This is a difficult issue to come to grips with. I will agree, the Internet has vastly improved people's productivity and their ability to get the information they need. So yes, I would say the Internet is adding to our knowledge. There is a flip side to that coin however. The fact the all the information comes at such a low cost to us mentally is breaking down our ability to think at a deeper level. The less you pay for something, the less you appreciate it. For example, I know the everyday citizen appreciates their freedom. But do we appreciate it as much as those who have paid a price for it? Another example, when we get a library of movies for free (by one means or another. *cough*), do we even watch them all, or appreciate what went into them? I know I don't. I'm not saying I would ever go back to the dark ages of "going to the library", or "figuring something out for myself", but it's hard not to look back on how we used to learn (if you're old enough to even know) with a slight tinge in our stomach at realizing that knowledge is no longer a pursuit, but handed to us on a fiber optic platter.
      • eviltandem, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4This is a bizarre argument.

        Inventing computers has enabled us to do math problems humans simply couldn't do in a reasonable amount of time. As our knowledge increases, the problems become harder.

        Take programming for instance. We do things with computers today that would have been unimaginable just 20 years ago. This is because I no longer have to worry about memory management, etc... The tools to do this are now all formalized and done for me. So now I worry about bigger problems which the next generation will build their cooler, newer, tools on (like ajax).

        This is how learning and knowledge work. Eventually a form of knowledge becomes so standard that there is no real value to any of us "learning" it. We use what used to be the most advanced of human knowledge to create a new foreground to work in. The next generation will take things like ajax for granted, and use that to build even more advanced things.
        • cwmather, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1I'm not saying that we have not VASTLY improved our wealth of knowledge and broken past our past limitations, which is what you seem to be arguing. What I AM saying, is that the advent of search engines like Google and databases like Wikipedia our pursuit of knowledge has taken a nose dive. It's so much easier to get the information we need or want that some of the joy of finding it is gone.
        • eviltandem, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1So because it's easier to get information, we no longer pursue it? That makes no sense. If none of us are looking for it, why is there so much there? Searching through catalogs of unrelated material looking for the information I want is not "joy" in my mind. Having all the relevant information a few keywords away is absolutely bliss. Searching through text for info I want is a really long, dull process. Computers are just so much better at that kind of thing.

          I'm saying that we have so much information now that our pursuit of knowledge is actually increasing. Our quick and easy access to yesterdays knowledge means we are accelerating our search for more knowledge today. Less time spent "finding" old information means more time using it.

          Everything is getting easier and faster. Besides, I cannot imagine how big a library would need to be to hold all the information now found on the internet...
    • OmegaWolf, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3When I was a child back in the 80s, I had to go to the library to research things for reports, or look stuff up in encyclopedias and dictionaries. These days, kids can just use Google and Wikipedia to do all their research. I would have given anything to have such tools at my disposal, as I absolutely loathed homework.

      However, I do think the article makes a good point. We are on the verge of losing a deeper, more intellectual part of ourselves as our society becomes more abbreviated in everything it does. Articles use shorter words and dumb everything down now. When was the last time anyone spelled anything they typed online out?

      I will admit that it's harder for me to read a book now than it used to be. My goal is to read the classic works by the likes of Dickens, Chaucer, Mandeville, Plato, Socrates and Virgil, but it's so hard to concentrate on the text. My eyes want to skip ahead a few lines and I have to force myself to come back and this did not used to be a problem when I was younger.
  • kevdotbadger, on 06/10/2008, -9/+1yas, yas it is.
  • blest, on 06/10/2008, -4/+7I couldn't finish the article. I guess the man has a point.
  • rootsm3, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3I know exactly what he's saying. I skimmed through the article just like he probably thought I would.

    However, I don't think this is a bad thing. People are acquiring their information differently than they did before. Steve Jobs was kinda right when he said people don't read anymore. Because they don't! But really I don't feel stupider just because I get restless when I'm reading. I think people just want the text to get to the point. Like I didn't read his little anecdote in the beginning because I didn't care for it. Ugh, maybe he's right...

    And I know that many many diggers just read the article description rather than the actual article. I'm guilty of that sometimes.
  • acidbathfan, on 06/10/2008, -2/+8I feel where this article is coming from but more so when it comes to music and this is a little off topic, but 10 years ago I could listen to really long songs and albums like it was nothing; it was a no brainer to sit and enjoy them but now I rarely stay interested for more than 2 minutes per song and if it's a whole album it constantly has to be moving and heading in multiple directions to keep my attention....it's almost like I have developed musical a.d.d. and if it doesn't constantly rattle my cage I'm heading on to the next album or mp3 never to listen to it again.

    I know I'm not the only one like this but few people will ever admit to it, it's like ever since the original Napster hit years ago it's as if a whole generation of people has become this caricature of Jobe from the Lawnmower Man in the scene where he's driving down the road listening to cd after cd and can't listen fast enough except we have ipods, torrents, last fm's, hype machines,and a infinite number of blogs to constantly shoot into our ears and eyeballs instead of necks to stay constantly juiced up :)
    • eviltandem, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2You say all this like it's a bad thing. If it's so bad, why do we all like it so much?

      Seems to me these are all advantages of being alive today, not consequences.
  • staeiou, on 06/10/2008, -0/+9Google only makes us stupid if it does what he says it does to us and then goes away and is not replaced by something similar. Articles like this are like saying, "Are watches making it harder to tell time without watches?"
    • SoundJudgment, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Watches?? BAH! The devil's tool. As soon as those clouds move, I can tell you exactly what time it is!
  • jnuffnuffnomnom, on 06/10/2008, -3/+0cliffs please
  • Asrrin29, on 06/10/2008, -1/+16Funny how he purposefully makes the article long and boring after the first few paragraphs, restating the same thing over and over again through all the pages. And he has such disdain for advancements in technology, saying the founders of Google want nothing more then fore the world to be black and white machine processes with no "fuzziness." as if he knew anything about computing, he would know that introducing "fuzziness" into computer algorithms is how we are advancing AI. We aren't becoming more like machines, machines are becoming more like us.
    • Gamer2k4, on 06/10/2008, -2/+3> Funny how he purposefully makes the article long and boring after the first few paragraphs, restating the same thing over and over again through all the pages.

      Um...that's how proper writing is done. You have a main point, and you constantly provide support for it and reinforce it throughout the article.
      • tensider, on 06/10/2008, -1/+3Well yeah, that's how proper writing has been formalized in an academic setting. However this reinforcement can be done with a subtle elegance or it can be bluntly and awkwardly hammered into the reader. Any student who has been forced to slog through a repetitive and poorly constructed academic article can sympathize.

        Like searching Google, just because you know how to go through the motions doesn't mean you know how to do it *well*.
      • eviltandem, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2lol, then "proper writing" is not very well designed to keep human attention.

        I never understood why things that are inherently boring are often considered "great". If the paper doesn't hold the attention of it's intended audience, then it is poorly written.
  • Duositex, on 06/10/2008, -6/+8No.

    Next.
  • RationalXubrnce, on 06/10/2008, -1/+5 Google has exposed to me to all sides of a debate instantly and helped me clear up myths and misconceptions that in the past would have lingered for years.
  • theprokaryote, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4I wouldn't take too much offense to the use of the word "stupid" in the title, its just a sensationalist attention-grabber. I find it interesting to think about what kind of people we will be in 30 years, when we have effectively instant-access to limitless information - what kind of thinkers will we be then? Will it free up our minds to think about a broader range of topics, or will it dumb us down instead?

    If you enjoyed the article, you should check out his book "The Big Switch." You might find it kind of dry at parts but if you enjoy history and technology its an incredibly good read.
    • Javlington, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Or "Rainbows End" by Vernor Vinge

      yes, without the apostrophe.
  • VideoHost1, on 06/10/2008, -3/+1Im only as smart as google is
  • duggdowncatisad, on 06/10/2008, -7/+1tl;dr
  • greatgatsbyII, on 06/10/2008, -8/+2tl;dr
  • craighoxton, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4Google is as Google does
  • thorstrongstone, on 06/10/2008, -1/+11I have no clue, but I bet Google knows the answer.
  • nedy78, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2The Golden Rule. Take heed and get outside every once in a while if you don't, do, it's good for the mind.
  • Sifter, on 06/10/2008, -0/+11It's a really well written piece (as always with Nick Carr), and with great examples and it's not actually as negative as the headline and some of the comments make out. The real jist of his argument is that the media and technologies we use change how we think - always have done, always will - and that given that the web is replacing the printing press (the most fundamental invention of the last 500 years and which has, more than anything else shaped how we think) , this is kind of a big deal.
    • FairDinkumMate, on 06/10/2008, -5/+1It's a deliberately terribly written piece! The article is intentionally tedious & repetitive with the object of discouraging people from reading through it in a blatant attempt to justify his point.
    • eviltandem, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1Replace "printing press" with "written word" and I agree with you.

      It's not a big deal because it's the same thing, just a new medium. A better medium.
    • whatisnotmyname, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5As possibly one of 3 people that read the actual article in the magazine, I love the irony of a parade of Digg users complaining that the article itself was too long, too boring, written by old people, by academics, by snobs, arguing that the article's "argument" is stupid and incorrect, and above all, defending positions that aren't under attack.

      Thank you Sifter for actually reading the article and pointing out the fundamentals.

      For others: the argument isn't that Google "makes us stupid" by reducing the number of facts we need to know, or that memorization equals intelligence. It's not the equivalent of the old "if you can't quote the Bible/locate Arkansas on a map/determine a cosine/assemble a carburetor/code in C++ you're an idiot" argument.

      It's that we're undergoing a fundamental shift in comprehension, reading, and possibly even logic. Many are increasingly unable to process information in chunks of more than 400 words (as many comments prove, and unfortunately I do not believe they are attempting to be ironic), that attention spans are on a downward spiral, that in the transformation to information transmitters we are effectively losing the ability to process the information (for instance, how many Slashdot or Digg articles does the average user click on? And how much information from those articles is retained, used or processed in any somewhat meaningful way? And how much is promptly deleted from memory?), that the new information structure is literally resulting in a re-wiring of our very brains, and that just as the printing press inspired doomsday prophets to bemoan the death of knowledge (and many of those concerns were justified) there were innumerable blessings that offset the loss (as there is with the internet.)

      Crap. That's too long. Duhr... google not make people teh stupid... peeps must RTFA.
      • eviltandem, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1See, I see this all as more of the same. It's capitalism working on the idea market. If it takes you more than 400 words to draw people in, they move on.

        The article can be longer, but you can't depend on people reading the whole thing before making a decision on whether or not to read it all. There's just so much information at our fingertips that we're getting more picky about what gets our time.

        Ultimately we spend more time learning and reading, but less time on crap content. I constantly read about how many hours we all spend on the internet (mostly reading), followed by articles about how we all aren't reading anymore?

        We are reading more than ever, we just demand the meat up front. I have so much relevant content to wade through I have to depend on a quick scan of any given page to determine relevance and value. If it can be said in 400 words, and you wrote 4,000, then the market will probably reflect that inefficiency in fewer readings...
      • kitsua, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Exactly. The essay was excellently written and explored a very valid and contemporary philosophical question. It was brilliantly structured and researched and he managed to explain all the points, diligently, without being overtly opinionated either way. His points were historically illuminating and he got to the guts of the issue.

        What's more, he addressed the arguments against his initial points and explained their validity, thus debunking any of the rebuttals made so idiotically by so many posters here. It's clear that they either didn't read the article or didn't understand it.

        It's not an ARGUMENT trying to score points, it's an essay exploring a topic - the irony of people's responses would be funny if the irony wasn't so crushingly predictable and irritating.
  • Cattywampus, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4I don't know if Google and other Web sites make people stupid, but I know a lot of people who have become lazier and sloppier because of relying on them excessively.
  • nutmeag, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2Perhaps our attention spans are a bit shorter, but I wouldn't call us more stupid because of the internet. I've had no change in my reading habits. I might even read more now than I used to, since I'm no longer in school. Of course, I've never been able to read War and Peace, so perhaps I've always had a short attention span.
  • Iluvator, on 06/10/2008, -2/+4I would argue that the internet is making us stupider in the same sense that electricity made us lazier: we are doing more with less effort. The cost of relying on google is our lost ability to do without it. The benefit is that we can do bigger things that we /couldn't/ do without it. Instead of getting the same amount of information with less work, we end up getting more information with the same amount of work. I say it's worth the price.

    Wish I could say I read past the second page to counter his point. My excuse is that I'm at work, though. It's anyone's guess whether I'll come back and read the rest when I get out.
  • Sunsneezer, on 06/10/2008, -2/+9This is the kind of article you shouldn't comment on without reading it whole, people. It shows.
  • whitelights, on 06/10/2008, -2/+3I think it's making us both smart and stupid.
    It's a means for getting information at rapid speeds, some information that we may never have had access to previosuly. But, I also think online reading like this guy is talking about is greatly demoting our appreciation for actual written word, and literature.
    • Goombellaofgoom, on 06/10/2008, -1/+3I totally agree. The internet is useful if you know what you're looking for, or want to find something specific. It will even guide you to related topics. For that, I welcome it wholeheartedly.

      But I used to spend whole afternoons wandering the library, looking for something interesting to catch my eye and pull me in. Many of the things I ended up reading would never have appeared on a "you might like..." list on a computer.
      Flipping through a dictionary or encyclopedia by hand will unveil words and concepts you've never imagined, and never would have found linked to the wikipedia page you'd find online.
      • eviltandem, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2? then you're using it wrong...

        I've found tons of things I never would have discovered in a library. Take wikipedia. With a single click I can examine whatever sources an article cites. In a library I almost never would hunt down a source and read that too.

        Just flip through wikipedia instead of a book. It's faster and easier!
  • Vtorch, on 06/10/2008, -8/+3Buried for Lame.
    • kitsua, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Buried for having a very small brain and letting us know.
  • neutrino15, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2Number of facts memorized != Intelligence.
    I still love to read good books, and be transported into a poetic world, maybe this "writer" just fails miserably. I couldn't finish the first page of his idiotic article.
    • kitsua, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Another doozy. Boy, the morans are out in force aren't they?

      Oh, that's right, it's the internets!
  • ssetd, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2Life is faster in all sorts of ways. Pull off to the side, on occasion. Breathe. Read a book. Watch a sunset. My buddy, Tom Merton, said it best: "Don't just do something, stand there!"
  • bensong, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2I got half way through this article then became distracted by other browser tabs and emails. I didn't even realise I had veered off course until 10 minutes later :(
  • SubKamran, on 06/10/2008, -2/+3This is a silly argument. Google has only made it easier to find what I'm looking for. I don't use Google to learn, I use it to find a website that has the information I'm looking for. And guess what? If I'm doing research, I'll go the library if I can't find what I'm looking for.
    • Goombellaofgoom, on 06/10/2008, -1/+3"This is a silly argument... I don't use Google to learn, I use it to find a website that has the information"
      That is a dangerous way of thinking: It doesn't apply to me, so it can't apply to anyone.

      Yes, many of us use Google only for quick information... but lots of people are relying on it for much more. Especially today's young people who have grown up using it.
      Twenty years from now, the Google generation will have many of the world's jobs. How will they do their work? Will they have the ability to innovate and create? To think on their feet? Only time will tell.
      • eviltandem, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2Yes. In fact they will probably do more than we did because they aren't wasting time finding the information they need to develop an idea.
        • SubKamran, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Indeed, because the people who work in an industry that requires innovative thinking and creativity will probably be smart people, thus they will have their own ways of finding information.
  • Skull0Inc, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2Not stupid.......just more dependent upon technology. We just access vast amounts of information allot faster than the conventional libraries. However there is a huge bottleneck on how fast we can actually digest such large amounts of information making us swamped with information....which may not be such a good thing.
  • myass666mlong, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2what ? no! its the tvs job
  • notkevinrose, on 06/10/2008, -1/+7google make me dumber... that's unpossible.
  • pantone286, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2Too late.
  • Canadian0207, on 06/10/2008, -1/+6intelligence is not knowing information, but knowing how to find information when needed.

    no, google has made us more intelligent.
    • Zephik, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Exactly.

      Intelligence and knowledge are two different things.

      Although they can go hand in hand with each other. After all, isn't intelligence just applied knowledge? So, the more you know, the more intelligence you are capable of?

      Now I'm just confused...
    • ggolem, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1Intelligence is not just knowing how to find information, though that is certainly part of it. Intelligence is being able to do something with information you have.
  • stouch000, on 06/10/2008, -4/+0Too long to read!
    google is google, take what's good and leave the cr*p out...it's just like TV.
    but Google has been good to me as far! what would I do without google?!
    I didn't know about Cain the "songbird", till I googled it. see google can be good!
    • kitsua, on 06/12/2008, -0/+1I've been trying to think of a way of responding to your potent idiocy but words fail me, so these ones will have to do; you are stupid - please stop voicing your opinions where others can read them.
  • Aleman360, on 06/10/2008, -3/+6Hey guys, this isn't a blog post, it actually covers all bases. Try reading the 4th page.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.