What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
198 Comments
- tattertech, on 06/10/2008, -2/+126Too long to read.
- 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. - laola1, on 06/10/2008, -1/+69Didn't finish the article... does this prove his point?
- Heretushi, on 06/10/2008, -6/+51Google does not make people stupid. The way YOU use Google may turn YOU stupid.
- 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.
- inactive, on 06/10/2008, -0/+24The pulse of Digg is in no way, shape, or form indicative of the pulse of society in general.
- Fullvinyl, on 06/10/2008, -1/+19No, 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- whoreable, on 06/10/2008, -0/+15I think you meant TL;DR
- lolinyerface, on 06/10/2008, -0/+13Sometimes its the pulse of stupidity...but you gotta take what you can get.
- 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.
- 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.
- thorstrongstone, on 06/10/2008, -1/+11I have no clue, but I bet Google knows the answer.
- cwazidorse, on 06/10/2008, -2/+12google made my degree so much easier
- 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. - 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?"
- 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 - chaos7, on 06/10/2008, -3/+10making us smarter
- 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.
- Sunsneezer, on 06/10/2008, -2/+9This is the kind of article you shouldn't comment on without reading it whole, people. It shows.
- notkevinrose, on 06/10/2008, -1/+7google make me dumber... that's unpossible.
- 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 :) - 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.
- Crozz, on 06/10/2008, -1/+7I just read the headline. then wall of text
- 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.
- 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. - 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?
- 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.
- sceptic101, on 06/10/2008, -1/+6because of this comment im not going to open it, google would never hurt me anyway.
- 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. - txtphile, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4I've found I watch less television as I use the internets more. And the television I do watch is quite often something I actually want to see. Does that mean I'm getting smarter?
Despite his general (and probably correct) sentiment that the "internet mind" is just another evolution of civilization I caught a strong whiff of intellectual snobbery from the author. Not cool. Then again, I'm personally looking forward to being a cranky old man someday so I can't really get all that exercised about it. - 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. - inactive, 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.
- richmonkey3, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4"Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do. I'm half crazy all for the love of you. It won't be a stylish marriage, I can't afford a carriage. But you'll look sweet upon the seat of a bicycle built for two."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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'.
- spanglegluppet, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4Meh, I don't know. Let's ask Google.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=is+Google+making ... - inactive, 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, -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. - Aleman360, on 06/10/2008, -3/+6Hey guys, this isn't a blog post, it actually covers all bases. Try reading the 4th page.
- 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... - 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!
- VinnieDaMac, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3On the flip side, anyone who doesn't use Google IS stupid.
- inactive, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3I don't think it's making us "stupid" or "smart", just more informed. I know there's a lot of stuff that I've learned over the years because it was easy to look up, which I never would have bothered with if I had to go to the library to find out. One particular example is patents. I would never have bothered before, but now when I find an interesting device, I often will look up the patent to see how it works.
- coudboule, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3"When the brain gets rid of certain kind of loads, it makes room for others. When printing started to spread, the amount of memory that was 'liberated' made possible the invention of physics, just as mathematics became possible at the time of writing. You may compare that with the evolution of the human race towards an erect position. The forelegs, which became available for seizing things, became hands, and liberated the mouth from that task in the process. Which enabled mankind to start speaking. This shift could not have been anticipated beforehand. So I do believe that the current evolution of technology is not something historical but man-inherent. It is not in the order of history, but in the order of evolution."
cf. http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-98 ... - 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. -
Show 51 - 100 of 203 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is