Username:
Password:






 
Internet shallow brain.
Posted by leflaw on June 7, 2010 at 9:34 AM   (printer friendly)

From CNN.com

Editor's Note: Nicholas Carr is the author of "The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains."

(CNN) -- During a recent commencement address at Hampton University in Virginia, Barack Obama described the way today's internet-powered media environment "bombards us with all kinds of content."

He warned students that iPads, Xboxes, and other popular digital gadgets can turn information into "a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment" rather than a means "of empowerment."

As soon as the president's remarks were made public, knees began jerking throughout the blogosphere.

One online pundit said that Obama sounded "like a grumpy old man." Another suggested that in criticizing technology he was acting like an "old fogy." Even the normally restrained Economist magazine rushed out an editorial accusing Obama of "technophobia" and "Luddism."

By the reaction, you would have thought our BlackBerry-toting president had called for a return to horse-drawn carriages, outhouses, and whalebone corsets.

Instead of drawing ridicule, Obama's words should have drawn our attention -- and our concern.

Over the past decade, most of us have been dramatically ratcheting up the time we spend surfing the web, exchanging electronic messages, and hanging out in social networks like Facebook and MySpace. At the same time, we've been showering our kids with laptops, iPods, PlayStations and smartphones.

The average American today spends more than eight hours a day peering into a screen -- TV, computer, or cell phone -- and the average teen sends or receives well over 2,000 text messages a month.

But even as we've been enjoying the seemingly endless bounties of the net, neurobiologists and psychologists have been carrying out studies which suggest that the way we gather information online impedes comprehension, weakens understanding, and in general hinders learning.

Worse yet, the ill effects of heavy web use appear to continue to afflict us even when we turn our computers off.

The cognitive penalties can be particularly severe for students. In one revealing experiment, researchers at Cornell University divided a class into two groups. One group was allowed to use their laptop computers to surf the web during a lecture. The other group attended the same lecture but had to keep their computers closed.

Immediately afterward, the students took a test measuring how well they remembered the lecture's content. The students who used their laptops performed significantly worse on the exam. It didn't matter, moreover, whether they surfed sites related to the subject of the lecture or unrelated sites. All the surfers performed relatively poorly.

Other researchers have found that students who read text with hyperlinks, as you routinely find online, end up with a weaker understanding of the material than students who read the same text in a traditional, linear format, as you'd find in a printed book.

Each link appears to act as a little distraction, breaking the reader's concentration. As the number of links mounts, comprehension diminishes further.

The multitude of messages and other bits of information that the Web fires at us, from emails to tweets to Facebook updates, have also been found to interrupt our thoughts in a way that impedes the formation of memories and the building of knowledge. The more information we juggle, the less able we are to make sense of it all.

Last year, a team of Stanford researchers reported that heavy media multitaskers have trouble concentrating even when they're not online. They're considerably less able, for example, to distinguish important information from trivial information than are people who engage in multitasking less frequently.

"Everything distracts them," one of the researchers said of the heavy multitaskers.

Patricia Greenfield, a leading developmental psychologist who teaches at UCLA, warned in a 2009 Science article that a growing body of scientific evidence indicates that spending a lot of time with computers, smartphones, and other such devices weakens people's ability to think deeply, critically, and creatively.

As we rush around the web gathering little pieces of information, we seem to be training our brains to be quick but superficial.

Only a curmudgeon would deny the many benefits that our computers and electronic networks have brought us. The internet and related technologies have made it much easier to stay in touch with friends and family members, to discover interesting and useful information, to express ourselves, and to collaborate with others.

Since the World Wide Web was invented two decades ago, we have been celebrating these benefits -- and rightly so. But we've been paying much less attention to the negative consequences of our online lives.

The time has come for us to take a more balanced view of the net, looking at its costs as well as its benefits. That's particularly true when it comes to educating our children. Sticking a kid in front of a computer screen is probably not the best way encourage the development of a strong, creative, and supple mind.

As President Obama implied, information should be a source not of distraction but of enlightenment.

As important as it is to be able to find lots of information quickly, what's even more important is to be able to think deeply about the information once we've found it. We need to slow down.


User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)

pepe512000  
Date: June 7, 2010 @ 4:06 PM
Obama would love nothing more than to take over the internet, as they have taken over so many things, auto industry, college loans, etc, etc. http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/07/obama-fcc-to-attempt-government-takeover-of-the-internet/

He'd also love to see the "dumbing down" of America, which makes it that much easier for future people control.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=85442

As for the music? They ARE stuffing the genie back into the bottle..even liberal Canada is going along with the US DMCA which sickens me! Of course...we'll be part of it all too, sad, but true.


ShadowMom  
Date: June 8, 2010 @ 10:53 PM
Pepe, in no way does that article imply that Obama would love to "dumb down" America, and really-- WND as a news source? The headline says, "Kissinger: Obama primed to create 'New World Order'" -- which is a neocon concept, and seriously, Obama is a closet neocon now?

And if he wanted to take over the internet, why tell people to spend less time there? How does that make any sense? Taking over college loans-- cripes, I KNOW what a college education costs these days, and all he did was take over the loans, so students will pay back the government instead of private companies.

Now, I was busy surfing... so don't test me on what I just read... ;)

pepe512000  
Date: June 11, 2010 @ 3:49 PM
Want someting else to surf for? Google the Cloward–Piven strategy. Do we have a lot of Progressives here? I'm shocked :)

ShadowMom  
Date: June 11, 2010 @ 10:10 PM
Obama was 5 years old when that article was published. This sounds like another conspiracy theory to me, like the Illuminati and the New World Order. Only this one already failed.

ShadowMom  
Date: June 11, 2010 @ 10:17 PM
Btw, is Progressive now a bad thing? Do you really think you can stand still in a world that's changing at such an incredible rate-- and not be left behind?

pepe512000  
Date: June 12, 2010 @ 2:04 PM
Hey Shadowmom..nice "talking" with you again..

Concerning Mr. Obama, it doesn't matter when Cloward/Piven was created, as it's now been adopted again...

As far as these "conspiracy" theories go?, you just have to listen to what these people in high places (Czars) are saying about themselves, from their own mouths...they're really not hiding anything, and they are dangerous!

http://www.honestquestions.com/articles/people-surrounding-president-obama.asp

Obama has hired these guys, and as he said, "Judge me by the people I surround myself with"

ShadowMom  
Date: June 13, 2010 @ 11:10 PM
I missed you, too, pepe! :)

"Net neutrality" was favored by most grassroots organizations, from the EFF to the Free Press-- it was opposed by Comcast, At&T, and other goliath telecoms. Why would anyone trust Comcast more than the FCC? The FCC answers to the public. Comcast, at least for the moment, has the right to block access to any web site it pleases, even Boycott-RIAA and DMusic.

If there's anything I trust less than politicians, it's corporations. Yes, it's a lesser-of-two-evils situation, but that's the choice. And I'd be interested as to why you would trust Comcast or any ISP more than the government, especially when the government is acting in a regulatory manner. Add it up. Who's the ill wind here?

Second, WND has a problem as a news source. I don't know if their readers can only handle the headline or what, but they have a very bad habit of taking a piece of information out of ALL context and blowing it up so it sounds like the biggest gotcha of all time. I watched that interview with Kissinger, and really, did the letters NWO come out of his mouth in some sort of cartoon balloon? Or did the people-- I won't call them journalists-- who wrote the story just give it that special little oomphhh! Btw, after his comment about President Obama being in a position to actually make a difference in the world, the woman reporter asked him about the people the president has surrounded himself with. Seems Kissinger thought President Obama chose some excellent people.

Which leads us to the next story...

Your writer seems to be determined to show his utter bias, even to the point of bringing eugenics up wayyy too many times. For the last time, the Annenberg Project is not a plot to turn your children into communist zombies. Annenberg worked for Nixon.

Now, if when you were in high school and college, you didn't get a little rebellious, you should have. Van Jones is no longer in the administration, I don't think the president has daily chats with Bill Ayers, and even if he does, so what??? Wright is quoted as saying Obama will not speak to him-- what does Obama have to do, have the reverend shot?

My point is, this list is stupid. It's like saying, "I read Mein Kampf in high school, and it had a profound effect on me" -- hence, I must be a Nazi. No. The willingness to discuss other ideas and other ways is not a bad thing, and what happened in the 60s was a long time ago in an America that was far different.

As for the Cloward-Piven strategy, if you mean President Obama doesn't believe in letting Americans starve in the streets? Hoorah! Redistribution of wealth is not evil, if it's done fairly. You seem to resent taking a little more from the rich to help feed the poor. I resent the fact that the upper upper crust not only has managed to accrue a far greater percentage of the wealth that they just pass on to their heirs, but also that they aren't asked to pay their fair share.

"The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income."

Of course this is a radical idea, and if you believe the present administration is attempting to bring this about, they got a long long way to go. But let's just say... WWJD?

pepe512000  
Date: June 15, 2010 @ 10:50 PM
Hi there;

Just a couple of things, Van Jones and the others are all still working with the White House.

I did crazy things in my teens, but blowing up places like the pentagon and killing people weren't some of of my ideal pastimes.

Anyway, Shadowmom, I hope in the worst way that YOU ARE RIGHT... I truly , sincerely, mean that, because if not, you guys are in for a really lousy time!

Hoping for some nice stop gaps come November :)

ShadowMom  
Date: June 18, 2010 @ 1:05 PM
I sort of figure that if we could withstand the assault of the previous administration we can withstand pretty much anything. There's a pendulum in this country that swings back and forth, and I sort of like it that way.

I don't condone what Ayers did back in the 60s, pepe, because innocent people paid the price. But forgiveness and all that stuff is your turf. Judge him by what he does now. Or don't you believe people can change?

Van Jones does not work FOR the White Houseaccording to Wikipedia unless you mean secretly undercover whisper whisper... c'mon, pepe, there's not a plot behind every tree.

I may not be right, btw, but after those infamous 8 years, I'm willing to risk it. And should we all go up in flames? You can say, "I told you so."


pepe512000  
Date: June 19, 2010 @ 4:25 PM
Yes, I absolutley believe in people changing their lives around, but people first have to repent, but I, and others I work with here, have not seen one clue as to who in the big house (whether they work, or just visit) has changed their ways. I believe Bill Ayers even mentioned he wished he had done more damage, that was way back, 2008..really?

http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Obama-stonewalls-release-of-White-House-visitor-logs

And these people are always hanging around the White House..to the point Obama now needs to cover up the visitors lists..why?

These are not normal Democrats (not 100 % convinced of Obama), he may just be getting caught up in between radical Democrats & Republicans...but radicals nevertheless. Since Woodrow Wilson, these people have been trying to change the USA.

If you should want some fun reading, google STORMS (Standing Together To Organize A Revolutionary Movement) Reclaiming Revolution

Anyways, dearheart, I'll wish all the best for you folks down there, and hope this too shall pass..

pepe512000  
Date: June 21, 2010 @ 9:47 PM
This is interesting...jsut one guys opinion though.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/obama-s-agenda--overwhelm-the-system-95716764.html