In the past, people used to do their research in libraries and labs, but nowadays, with the advent of the internet, Google has become an easy source of information for almost all questions. People overly rely on Google for all answers to their doubts. This overdependence on Google has made the human brain lazy to generate creative solutions and worsened individuals memory.
The essay Is Google Making Us Stupid? highlights the various ways people have trained their minds to always use the internet, specifically Google, to find information on any topic. Carr (2008) argues that Google has become a rich store of knowledge with immediate access, but there is a danger of overly relying on this source; the mind becomes lazy to think creatively. People become the decoders of online materials and cannot critically engage in them (Carr, 2008). Thus, with the internet, the mind has been shortchanged, and memory worsened, and individuals no longer think because finding information has become too easy using Google.
I agree with this idea that Google has made us unintelligent because our creative ability has been undermined by the easy source of solutions online. Stefl and Rohm (2017) argue that peoples constant connectedness to information diminishes their critical thinking and creativity. These two researchers from the College of Business Administration at Loyola Marymount University investigated original thinking creativity with and without relying on the internet for instant access to information. Stefl and Rohm (2017) designed a simple experiment that involved using paper to create airplane models. They divided their participants into two groups: one could use Google, and another applied their own creativity. The non-Google groups planes were more original since they were born of pure imagination (Stefl & Rohm, 2017). Conversely, although the Google group produced stylish planes, they spent more time, while the non-Google groups planes were unique and flew farthest. Therefore, even without the internet, people can be more creative; this, Google makes people stupid.
In conclusion, the essay illustrates the significant ways in which peoples brains have been wired to be dependent on readily available online materials. Critical thinking has been adversely affected, as evidenced in the essay and the paper plane experiment. Therefore, although the internet is an easy source of information, it is crucial for us to critically engage the information and be creative instead of blindly using Google.
Stefl, M., & Rohm, A. (2017). Is the internet killing your creative potential?: Lessons from the art of paper airplane making. Graziadio Business Review, 20(1), 17.
In the past, people used to do their research in libraries and labs, but nowadays, with the advent of the internet, Google has become an easy source of information for almost all questions. People overly rely on Google for all answers to their doubts. This overdependence on Google has made the human brain lazy to generate creative solutions and worsened individuals memory.
The essay Is Google Making Us Stupid? highlights the various ways people have trained their minds to always use the internet, specifically Google, to find information on any topic. Carr (2008) argues that Google has become a rich store of knowledge with immediate access, but there is a danger of overly relying on this source; the mind becomes lazy to think creatively. People become the decoders of online materials and cannot critically engage in them (Carr, 2008). Thus, with the internet, the mind has been shortchanged, and memory worsened, and individuals no longer think because finding information has become too easy using Google.
I agree with this idea that Google has made us unintelligent because our creative ability has been undermined by the easy source of solutions online. Stefl and Rohm (2017) argue that peoples constant connectedness to information diminishes their critical thinking and creativity. These two researchers from the College of Business Administration at Loyola Marymount University investigated original thinking creativity with and without relying on the internet for instant access to information. Stefl and Rohm (2017) designed a simple experiment that involved using paper to create airplane models. They divided their participants into two groups: one could use Google, and another applied their own creativity. The non-Google groups planes were more original since they were born of pure imagination (Stefl & Rohm, 2017). Conversely, although the Google group produced stylish planes, they spent more time, while the non-Google groups planes were unique and flew farthest. Therefore, even without the internet, people can be more creative; this, Google makes people stupid.
In conclusion, the essay illustrates the significant ways in which peoples brains have been wired to be dependent on readily available online materials. Critical thinking has been adversely affected, as evidenced in the essay and the paper plane experiment. Therefore, although the internet is an easy source of information, it is crucial for us to critically engage the information and be creative instead of blindly using Google.
Stefl, M., & Rohm, A. (2017). Is the internet killing your creative potential?: Lessons from the art of paper airplane making. Graziadio Business Review, 20(1), 17.
The current paper is devoted to analyzing the article called Is Google Making Us Stupid? Written by Nicholas Carr. It was published in The Atlantis online journal. The analysis will be centered on the rhetorical means which help the author convey the main idea and attract the readers attention to the particular argument. Considering the articles publicist style, the authors central aim is to encourage specific thoughts in readers minds. The statement, which is highlighted by such rhetorical means as metaphors, wordplay, examples, and ethical questions, is built upon the idea that the internet changes the capacity of the brain-damaging some of the memory functions.
Metaphors and Wordplay
The first rhetorical tool used to strengthen the negative effect of the internet on the human brain is a metaphor. Carr uses metaphors invoking the rhetorical impact of directly referring to one thing while referring to another: brains as operating like clockwork 1 The author highlights that people lose humanity, becoming similar to machines. The author also highlights who is to be blamed for such actions through another metaphor: &Googleplexis the Internets high church .2 This rhetoric tool makes the text more emotional and thought-provoking. The author must cause the particular emotional response of the reader because many of his observations and opinions are personal. Precisely for such an audiences response, the author allocates another rethorictoolL wordplay. In order to highlight that the author does not try to force his opinion, the following wordplay is used: So, yes, you should be skeptical of my skepticism .3 However, the usage of wordplay also equalizes the author with other people, which makes his position even more reliable. Of wordplay also
Examples
The examples are one of the most effective rhetorical means of helping the author to support the main idea. The author allocates two types of examples: statistical and personal. Statistical examples evolved as scientific and academic support for the authors main argument. Such a method makes the text more supported by valid s scientific institutes: according to the Harvard Business Review. 4 Moreover, besides the statistical and academic examples, Carr builds contact with the reader through personal examples. Not only the author describes his personal experience but also allocates the opinions of famous bloggers: He speculates on the answer: What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because& . 5 By implementing such an example, the author notes that the reader, author, and other people mentioned in the narration are united: Im not the only one. 6 As a result of examples integration, the author makes the argument well supported by two different types of data. Such an approach is rational for supporting the argument based on the personal point of view which is expressed in the article.
Rhetorical Questions
Not only the examples can improve the sense of presence and unity for the reader. Another rhetorical tool to attract the audiences attention to the authors argument is rhetorical questions. Most often, rhetorical questions are used to emphasize the significance of a statement and draw the attention of the listener or reader to a particular problem. The author, in this context, uses a rhetorical question to highlight key phrases and involve the audience in the process of reflection: Where does it end? 7 Moreover, the articles name represents the rhetorical question.8 By posing questions, Carr follows the communicative intention of narration: to awaken the audiences consciousness regarding the changes in the brain caused by the internet. In other words, the provocation within the structure of rhetorical questions strengthens the authors argumentation, highlighting the problems significance.
The Criticism of the Argument
Considering mentioned rhetorical means used by the author, the text can be called appealing. The main argument is well supported by personal, scientific, and observational experiences. The method of narration, which includes various rhetorical means, is thought-provoking, helping the audience to understand the position better. Another function of the rhetoric tools here is the need to establish an emotional connection and unity between the author and readers. The mentioned examples strengthen the argument of the author by improving the supportive basis (examples) and emotional effect (rhetoric question, metaphors, and wordplay).
Conclusion
Concluding the analysis of the article, it can be stated that the authors argument is well-supported by using rhetorical tools. Metaphors and wordplay were used to create the feeling of unity with the readers and make the text more appealing. The creation of the comparison image makes the text more effective, which helps to achieve the needed emotional reaction from the audience. The examples serve as excellent argumentation bases providing diverse support for the primary authors idea. The rhetorical question was used by Carr in order to provoke the readers consciousness to agree with the authors opinion. The argument is solid due to the providing many examples and supporting facts, both scientific and public. The only drawback of the article is the lack of structural thought expression. The author provides no highlighted point moving from one theme to another, disturbing the text.
Bibliography
Carr, Nicholas. Is Google Making Us Stupid? The Atlantic, 2008.
Footnotes
Nicholas Carr, Is Google Making Us Stupid? The Atlantic, 2008, para 18.
We were at the meeting five years ago, and one question was posed, “Is electronic media likely to substitute the traditional media in a few years to come”? Everybody agreed that electronic media was first taking over from traditional sources of information. Only a few of us held that although electronic media is pushing print media out of business, people believe in seeing and touching, as such, print media will still have its way. After finding or looking for information on the Internet, people will still be perusing through books to confirm its truthfulness. This paper refutes the idea that electronic media reduces the ability of people to think and that it will substitute print media any time soon.
Summary
Nicholas Carr, in his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” mainly discusses the basis and impact of the way the Internet affects or impacts our reading, reasoning, and writing habits as well as the way our brains are trying to adapt to the changing times in the media industry (Carr para. 3). Carr employs the use of specific examples, as well as statistics, to explain his standpoint even though many people do not agree with it. In the first part of the article, the author argues whether our ways of writing and reading are impacted by Google’s search engine. He states, “Having nearly been sent to a deep-space death by the malfunctioning machine is calmly, coldly disconnecting the memory circuits that control its artificial” (par. 1).
Nicholas Carr strongly criticizes not just Google, but also its highly advanced toolbars as he thinks that they will one time turn human beings into machines like creatures. “When we use the Internet, we become mere decoders of information.” Our ability to interpret the text and to make the rich mental connections….remains largely disengaged” (par. 9). Given that the issue brought up by the author is very important, he provides very detailed instances to prove his standpoint.
The information and statistics employed in this article are very specific and cautiously checked. For instance, from the start, the author comes with a range of conspicuous examples to trap the attention of readers. Then, he sneaks in his rational discussion to demonstrate that Google is actually making people, especially those who use the Internet, lazier, and more mechanical. He states, “It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense…, it almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense” (par. 8).
In the end, the author emphasizes that by relying on the Internet for information, we sacrifice the traditional culture that enhanced our thinking capacity. It is like sacrificing what is noble in our lives. “Internet is not the alphabet, and even if it may replace the printing media, it produces something that is different altogether…. deep reading promoted by a sequence of print media” (par. 33).
Responses
From the standpoint of Carr, the first thing to ponder or question is whether, as alleged in his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” whether human beings are actually becoming more scattered and superficial in their thinking. Throughout his article, the author does not, in any way, celebrate the change in technology. He mainly sees change as a big loss. This, in fact, makes his criticism more superficial and completely misses out on the humanizing aspects of the Web. As a point of fact, it is always easy to criticize any new thing because we have not yet tested its positive sides. In addition, it is very difficult to understand the capabilities that new technology can bring to the life of humans.
In fact, what Carr describes is all about the worry of how we read and write. He must understand that the Net has actually brought a new style of reading. The way we listen to group members in a discussion without being changed into “machine-like” is similar to our reading on the Internet. The Internet is more like listening to a number of people talking. At the end of the day, we find ourselves not changed in any way by the net.
We still find ourselves in the natural state we were before. In fact, different from Carr’s insinuation, we find ourselves continually generating knowledge as our social contacts keep expanding on the Web. With the net, we have actually discovered novel ways of enjoying learning, particularly in a social environment. With this, the answer is “no”, Google is not and will never make us stupid. The only what online platform is actually doing is assisting us in reclaiming our lost learning legacy through a faster exchange of information and ideas in a social environment. Google is, in fact, shaping and making us smarter through the process of re-discovering new ways of learning.
The argument of Carr also fails to convince the reader, particularly when it comes to surfing the Web. Carr indicates that with the Internet, activities in the cognitive part of the brain have completely vanished. As he states, “the variations extend to regions of the brain, as well as those that govern such essential cognitive functions…… our use of the Net will be different from those woven by our reading of books and other printed works” (par. 10).
This is not based on science. In 2009, researchers at the University of California established that searches on the Internet result in enhanced activity in the prefrontal part of the brain, related to traditional reading style. In fact, it is this part of the brain that determines or controls skills such as deliberate analysis and selective attention. Carr indicates that all these skills have disappeared with the increased use of the Internet. As such, Google and the Web, in general, are not making us stupid, in fact, it is exercising and refreshing the parts of the brain that make people better in terms of reading, writing, and even thinking.
However, it must be recognized that this does not mean that the Internet has no side effects on those who use it. Every invention has a lot of good things and bad things on equal measure. Taking into account the Pavlov experiment of conditioned reflex, kids, who are continuously predisposed to binary numbers, take in large visual information, and a large area, that was previously allocated to object recognition, is taken up by visual recognition. Ultimately, literate humans are less introduced to natural details, an aspect that will not even enable them to read the written texts.
The article by Carr reminds me of Plato’s assertion or criticism of the art of writing when it was newly invented. In his dialog “Phaedrus”, he stated, “This invention of yours will lead to forgetfulness in the souls of learners, as they will not utilize their thinking capacities; they will rely and trust the externally drafted characters and fail remember anything…they will be people who fancy listening things that are said by other and fail to learn completely…” When the article is deeply analyzed, Carr seems to have quoted this text particularly when criticizing the print media. He stated, “The easy availability of written materials would result intellectual laziness….and weakening their minds… demean the work of intellectuals and spread falsehood” (par. 32).
In fact, these lines in his article weakened his line of thought more than what they were intended to deliver. They lay out a number of challenges associated with the Internet that Carr failed to specify in his argument.
In the end, the argument of Carr revolves around his strange outlook of the Web or Internet. That is, the author does not in anyway discuss or even mention varied types of Internet reading. Now, when Internet is real in our lives and not fictional, to a lesser scale, he should have discussed the likelihood of transferring media or some form of learning from the online setting to other place that he considers important. To illustrate this point, I have personally interacted with podcast. Some of the activities I engaged in were things like walking, exercising as well as using the computer. The logic or principle behind Podcast is ancient radio lessons which serve to prove that audio is essential in the learning process.
In the past, people used to do their research in libraries and labs, but nowadays, with the advent of the internet, Google has become an easy source of information for almost all questions. People overly rely on Google for all answers to their doubts. This overdependence on Google has made the human brain lazy to generate creative solutions and worsened individuals’ memory.
The essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” highlights the various ways people have trained their minds to always use the internet, specifically Google, to find information on any topic. Carr (2008) argues that Google has become a rich store of knowledge with immediate access, but there is a danger of overly relying on this source; the mind becomes lazy to think creatively. People become the decoders of online materials and cannot critically engage in them (Carr, 2008). Thus, with the internet, the mind has been shortchanged, and memory worsened, and individuals no longer think because finding information has become too easy using Google.
I agree with this idea that Google has made us unintelligent because our creative ability has been undermined by the easy source of solutions online. Stefl and Rohm (2017) argue that people’s constant connectedness to information diminishes their critical thinking and creativity. These two researchers from the College of Business Administration at Loyola Marymount University investigated original thinking creativity with and without relying on the internet for instant access to information. Stefl and Rohm (2017) designed a simple experiment that involved using paper to create airplane models. They divided their participants into two groups: one could use Google, and another applied their own creativity. The non-Google group’s planes were more original since they were born of pure imagination (Stefl & Rohm, 2017). Conversely, although the Google group produced stylish planes, they spent more time, while the non-Google group’s planes were unique and flew farthest. Therefore, even without the internet, people can be more creative; this, Google makes people stupid.
In conclusion, the essay illustrates the significant ways in which people’s brains have been wired to be dependent on readily available online materials. Critical thinking has been adversely affected, as evidenced in the essay and the paper plane experiment. Therefore, although the internet is an easy source of information, it is crucial for us to critically engage the information and be creative instead of blindly using Google.
Stefl, M., & Rohm, A. (2017). Is the internet killing your creative potential?: Lessons from the art of paper airplane making. Graziadio Business Review, 20(1), 1−7.
Nicholas Carr’s powerful essay called “Is Google Making Us Stupid” is an interesting piece of writing that persuaded readers to take a long and hard look on the Internet’s impact on the human brain. An overview of the essay revealed the application of a careful appeal to the reader’s emotions, the establishment of the writer’s credibility, logical presentation of relevant information, and the subtle entreaty using shared experiences. After a careful review of the ancient rules of persuasion, it was made clear that Carr utilized an Aristotelian construct characterized by three Latin words – pathos, ethos, and logos – in order to develop a persuasive argument concerning the impact of the Internet on the human brain.
Summary of the Essay
Nicholas Carr made an attempt to persuade readers to reconsider the impact of the Internet on a person’s thought process. His claim was centered on a personal experience in conjunction with the experience of other skilled writers when it came to the way they go through certain mental tasks. This was manifested while in the process of reading books, and the creation of significant literary works that required deep thought and several hours of study.
Carr pointed out the speed and ease of access to information as twin factors that affected the radical changes in the Internet user’s thought process. Carr connected with his readers when he leveraged Marshall McLuhan’s theory on how the medium affects the message (1). He also bolstered his claim when he presented the scientific basis of the brain’s plasticity or the mind’s profound adaptation capabilities (Carr 1).
Carr’s Manipulation of Words
Aristotle’s strategy of persuasion requires three key elements, and it is defined through the usage and interaction of three Latin words: ethos, pathos, and logos (Killingsworth 26). Ethos, the ancient root word for ethics, defines the importance of the speaker’s character. In other words, the proponent of the persuasive rhetoric must have a clear understanding of the importance of credibility because it is a crucial consideration before speaking in front of an audience (Killingsworth 26).
Pathos, another ancient term, defines the need to connect through shared experiences and human emotions (Killingsworth 26). On the other hand, logos, the third component, defines the importance of the logical presentation of verifiable statements, in order to urge the audience to think hard regarding a certain issue (Killingsworth 26).
Aristotle designed the use of the ethos, pathos, and logos as part of an orator’s arsenal of skills (Killingsworth 26). Therefore, adopting the said strategy in the crafting of an essay required the careful manipulation of words. For example, the author substituted Google for the word Internet.
Carr’s Use of the Ethos
In the ancient use of ethos, orators relied on costumes and hand gestures to establish an air of credibility. This type of methodology was not accessible to Carr. Thus, he utilized a different tactic to establish his credibility, and he succeeded by convincing his readers regarding his writing capabilities. Carr’s ability to create an essay as a professional writer was made obvious after his name was appended to a world-class organization called The Atlantic. However, for those who did not get the hint, Carr added one anecdote after another, and these were subtle references to his capability as a writer. At one point, he intimated that he spent ten years “searching and surfing and sometimes adding to the great database of the Internet” (Carr 1). He also made the disclosure that he was familiar with the different forms of online content, such as e-mail, blog posts, video, podcasts, and essays found on websites (Carr 1).
Carr’s Use of the Pathos
A human connection with the readers was made in the essay’s first paragraph. In the introduction section, the author recalled a poignant scene in one of the most popular films of all time. In Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, Carr found the perfect vehicle to carry the message regarding the abstract idea of the re-arrangement of the mental circuitry within the brain (Carr 1). It was a well-calculated move on the part of the author, because the film’s popularity and subject matter assured the establishment of common ground between the author and his target audience (Killingsworth 26).
He also created a human connection when he used Google as a reference point, even when the technical term for the medium he wanted to focus on was the Internet, and not the world’s most popular search engine. However, he came to realize the fact that when he wrote the word Google, the majority of the readers associated the term to the World Wide Web or the Internet.
Carr’s use of the Logos
Carr developed a four-stage process in the construction of a logical framework supporting his thesis. First, he examined his personal thought process in relation to the way he acquired information. Second, he examined the thought process of his colleagues. He compared how they acquired information before the advent of the Internet, and after they became adept at getting information online. Third, he discussed a popular theoretical framework regarding the impact of mass media on the lives of modern people.
Marshall McLuhan’s “the medium is the message” was a theoretical construct he used. It was useful in understanding how the Internet had affected the way users processed and appreciated the various types of online content available through the World Wide Web. Finally, Carr presented relevant findings in the field of neuroscience that were instrumental in explaining the mental adaptation process that the brain has to go through, when faced with a radically different stimulator or source of information.
Conclusion
Carr’s persuasive argument with regards to the Internet’s effect on the human thought process compelled readers to reconsider how they use the World Wide Web in accessing information online. He persuaded his readers through persuasive arguments based on an ancient framework defined by three Latin words – ethos, pathos, and logos. Carr’s effective application of the concept of “ethos” gave him an opportunity to present his argument in a credible manner. He was able to accomplish this task by presenting his credentials as a writer. Carr’s effective use of “pathos” enabled him to establish a human connection with his readers. As a result, his readers felt they were able to relate to his ideas.
Finally, his careful application of the “logos” principle enabled him to skillfully create a four-stage process of arguing the case. He started with his personal experience that served as a way to connect with his readers. This approach also enhanced his credibility with his readers. As a result, readers were made aware of the mind-altering power of the Internet. Carr’s insights came at a critical juncture when human beings are no longer interested in books. It is important to take a closer look at the ideas provided by Carr because human being must find out if the long-term impact of using the Internet causes detrimental effects that the global population may soon regret.
A storehouse of knowledge and useful information – an immensely valuable tool, which is the Internet – allows all people to almost instantly access any information that interests them. Every day, users come there to chat with friends on social networks, play games, read something, or watch, and therefore, for many people, almost all their lives go online. With the help of the World Wide Web, people can share their experiences with other users and accumulate knowledge. Discussions about whether digital technologies make people stupid began with their global spread. Scientists around the world are researching whether the dominance of the Internet and other scientific advances contribute to brain degradation. However, the leading causes most likely to lie in fact, any tool that brings comfort eliminates the extra and healthy stress, which is needed for bodies and minds to grow.
Problem of Intelligence
The constant use of the Internet necessarily leads to changes in the functioning of the human brain. Surfing the Internet makes intellectual activity superficial, and thus, the skill necessary for a modern person to quickly and regularly browse sites leads to the fact that the human brain gradually loses its ability to deep and systemic thinking. This conclusion was made by Nicholas Carr, a leading American expert in the field of cyber information (Carr, 2016). Carr led a group of research psychologists, and two years ago, he became known all over the world after the publication of the article, “Does Google make us stupid?”. He stated that: “Once you create an engine – a machine – to produce serendipity, you destroy the essence of serendipity.” (Carr, 2016). The largest technology companies around the world do not underestimate the problem of the relationship between the creative abilities of man and the Internet. The American aircraft manufacturer Boeing created a special expert group that works with young engineers (Montag & Reuter, 2017). Its goal is to maintain the intellectual form of specialists. The group teaches a balanced approach to find information on the Internet and in the scientific literature.
Possible Causes
The latest studies of neurosurgeons show that when working on the Internet, two areas of the brain develop very quickly: the center responsible for making quick decisions, and the part responsible for short-term memory. However, the deep zones of the brain, in which there is a detailed analysis of fundamental problems related to all aspects of human activity and life, do not receive the necessary impulses (Seok, Lee, Sohn, & Sohn, 2015). As a result, the intensity of their work is reduced, and the “obsession” of people with Internet surfing leads to impulsiveness and a loss of ability to leisurely and in-depth intellectual activity.
Moreover, people who are always online are complaining of fatigue, irritability, and difficulty in perceiving. Young people who are accustomed to correspondence with short messages, to watch short videos and concise texts are no longer so easily forced to read a whole book. People stop worrying about remembering information because they can always use the Internet. Jumping from one resource to another, a constant distraction to e-mails, notifications about messages lead to “computer fatigue,” when it becomes more difficult for users to focus on one thing and think slowly and in-depth (Montag & Reuter, 2017). This is especially important for small users who grow up with laptops in their hands instead of toys.
However, in reality, the causes are not so simple. Still, the Internet is stimulated by the brain centers responsible for making quick decisions, hand-eye coordination, and the level of visual literacy. As a result of this, people develop critical thinking skills, improve the ability to form their opinions, and the ability to filter out the necessary information. Research confirms that using the Internet as “external brains,” where facts are stored, frees up space for other mental processes. To acquire knowledge from a wide variety of sources, question it, analyze and evaluate it, question the sources themselves, but the individual details of the mosaic into a meaningful whole – all this must be done independently. Without this, it is impossible to master knowledge and skills, and therefore, it is not a question of memorizing any information (Ainin, Jaafar, Ashraf, & Parveen, 2017). No one will become a climber by remembering the names of mountains or road signs on routes. The climber has this knowledge, but it is obvious that this is far from all the skills he needs.
Nevertheless, impaired mental processes and memory impairment are not the only negative effects of the Internet on humans. Plunging headlong into the network of the World Wide Web, a person gradually loses the skills of real communication, which leads to some of the absence of social integration. The main reason is that: “Why meet friends, when you can chat with them on Skype, why make arrangements with someone live or call up, if you can just send an e-mail, why search and buy goods in ordinary stores, when you can buy anything, don’t leaving the house” (Montag & Reuter, 2017). That is, previously described as advantages, all these amenities with prolonged and non-alternative use turn into a problem. Thus, difficulties in communicating with new people begin to appear, and getting into an unfamiliar company for an Internet-dependent person completely becomes a stressful situation.
Furthermore, a person closes in himself or herself, which affects his or her work or study, and he or she has problems with sleep and eating. Some unhealthy attachment to information technology even leads to suicide (Carr, 2016). In addition to mental and mental disorders, Internet addiction is dangerous, and the occurrence of physical diseases. Spending a monstrous amount of time at the monitor screens, people may damage their vision, and many might acquire tunnel syndrome (Montag & Reuter, 2017). Internet addiction, which is accompanied by a sedentary lifestyle, can lead to various diseases of the spine and joints, cardiovascular pathologies, and many other conditions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, such a process cannot be unambiguously called “stupidity” – it is not so much a decrease in quality as a change in the type of thinking. People’s brain is adapting to the digital environment, the way of thinking is changing, but there is nothing tragic about it. Likewise, almost two and a half thousand years ago, the great philosopher Socrates criticized the appearance of writing, saying that it weakens memory and mind, because people do not need to remember knowledge, but they need to remember where it is written in order to be able to access it. Evidently, the quality and reliability of the information on the network can vary greatly. Different people are looking for different information, the one that corresponds to their intellectual development. Therefore, Internet surfing gives a mixed effect, which in other words means that it is able to make smart people even smarter, and low IQ people even less intelligent. Nonetheless, in general, the Internet is neutral in relation to people’s brains and its work.
References
Ainin, S., Jaafar, N. I., Ashraf, M., & Parveen, F. (2017). Exploring the role of demographics and psychological variables in internet addiction. Social Science Computer Review, 35(6), 770-780.
Carr, N. (2016). Utopia is creepy: And other provocations. London, UK: W. W. Norton & Company.
Montag, C., & Reuter, M. (2017). Internet addiction: Neuroscientific approaches and therapeutical implications including smartphone addiction. New York, NY: Springer.
Seok, J. W., Lee, K. H., Sohn, S., & Sohn, J. H. (2015). Neural substrates of risky decision making in individuals with Internet addiction. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49(10), 923-932.
The current paper is devoted to analyzing the article called Is Google Making Us Stupid? Written by Nicholas Carr. It was published in The Atlantis online journal. The analysis will be centered on the rhetorical means which help the author convey the main idea and attract the readers’ attention to the particular argument. Considering the article’s publicist style, the author’s central aim is to encourage specific thoughts in readers’ minds. The statement, which is highlighted by such rhetorical means as metaphors, wordplay, examples, and ethical questions, is built upon the idea that the internet changes the capacity of the brain-damaging some of the memory functions.
Metaphors and Wordplay
The first rhetorical tool used to strengthen the negative effect of the internet on the human brain is a metaphor. Carr uses metaphors invoking the rhetorical impact of directly referring to one thing while referring to another: “brains as operating like clockwork” 1 The author highlights that people lose humanity, becoming similar to machines. The author also highlights who is to be blamed for such actions through another metaphor: “…Googleplex—is the Internet’s high church”.2 This rhetoric tool makes the text more emotional and thought-provoking. The author must cause the particular emotional response of the reader because many of his observations and opinions are personal. Precisely for such an audience’s response, the author allocates another rethorictoolL wordplay. In order to highlight that the author does not try to force his opinion, the following wordplay is used: “So, yes, you should be skeptical of my skepticism”.3 However, the usage of wordplay also equalizes the author with other people, which makes his position even more reliable. Of wordplay also
Examples
The examples are one of the most effective rhetorical means of helping the author to support the main idea. The author allocates two types of examples: statistical and personal. Statistical examples evolved as scientific and academic support for the author’s main argument. Such a method makes the text more supported by valid s scientific institutes: “according to the Harvard Business Review.”4 Moreover, besides the statistical and academic examples, Carr builds contact with the reader through personal examples. Not only the author describes his personal experience but also allocates the opinions of famous bloggers: “He speculates on the answer: “What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because…”.”5 By implementing such an example, the author notes that the reader, author, and other people mentioned in the narration are united: “I’m not the only one.”6 As a result of examples integration, the author makes the argument well supported by two different types of data. Such an approach is rational for supporting the argument based on the personal point of view which is expressed in the article.
Rhetorical Questions
Not only the examples can improve the sense of presence and unity for the reader. Another rhetorical tool to attract the audience’s attention to the author’s argument is rhetorical questions. Most often, rhetorical questions are used to emphasize the significance of a statement and draw the attention of the listener or reader to a particular problem. The author, in this context, uses a rhetorical question to highlight key phrases and involve the audience in the process of reflection: “Where does it end?”7 Moreover, the article’s name represents the rhetorical question.8 By posing questions, Carr follows the communicative intention of narration: to awaken the audience’s consciousness regarding the changes in the brain caused by the internet. In other words, the provocation within the structure of rhetorical questions strengthens the author’s argumentation, highlighting the problem’s significance.
The Criticism of the Argument
Considering mentioned rhetorical means used by the author, the text can be called appealing. The main argument is well supported by personal, scientific, and observational experiences. The method of narration, which includes various rhetorical means, is thought-provoking, helping the audience to understand the position better. Another function of the rhetoric tools here is the need to establish an emotional connection and unity between the author and readers. The mentioned examples strengthen the argument of the author by improving the supportive basis (examples) and emotional effect (rhetoric question, metaphors, and wordplay).
Conclusion
Concluding the analysis of the article, it can be stated that the author’s argument is well-supported by using rhetorical tools. Metaphors and wordplay were used to create the feeling of unity with the readers and make the text more appealing. The creation of the comparison image makes the text more effective, which helps to achieve the needed emotional reaction from the audience. The examples serve as excellent argumentation bases providing diverse support for the primary author’s idea. The rhetorical question was used by Carr in order to provoke the reader’s consciousness to agree with the author’s opinion. The argument is solid due to the providing many examples and supporting facts, both scientific and public. The only drawback of the article is the lack of structural thought expression. The author provides no highlighted point moving from one theme to another, disturbing the text.
Bibliography
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic, 2008.
Footnotes
Nicholas Carr, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic, 2008, para 18.
The world is growing too fast in terms of technology since the emergence of the internet. The internet remains important in bringing about technological change, thus influencing changes in human behavior.
In the view of many, the internet has greatly contributed to the growth of knowledge and research. However, although the internet has greatly contributed to the growth of knowledge, it has been opposed by a section of people arguing that it has numerous negative implications to innovation and creativity.
In his July Article, Nicholas Carr wrote “Is Google making Us Stupid.” Google is a widely used search engine across the internet. It is fundamental to note that although technology is essential in the context of the society, it comes with fear of deteriorating human development in some way. In this paper, I seek to argue in favor of the statement that Google is not making us stupid.
Discussion
Developments in technology and growth of knowledge would need necessary tools for their success. Therefore, knowledge requires tools of technology to ensure easy access, growth and distribution of information.
To argue that the minds are being made stupid by a tool that enables access to information with a view to advance the same body of knowledge is unsustainable. We note that research is a continuous exercise that needs scholars and academicians to link various pieces of knowledge with an aim of making it better.
Therefore, technological tools that promote this process are critically important (Leven 112). It is true according to DarkHawke that there shall constantly be fear of the advancements in technology by the masses (Schlesinger 68).
Science has done far-reaching research and predictions on what can go wrong with the advancements in technology. This fear has been in existence among people since their childhood. In many occasions, parents have exhibited their fear of technology by dictating and perhaps prescribing what their kids should watch, listen to, and play with.
Indeed those who argue against the extent to which Goggle has contributed to the growth of knowledge do so in the spirit that it has acted to obliterate the public discourses. They argue that no individual can now think about an answer when he or she can just “Google” the outcome (Schlesinger 68).
The mere fact that people can access information at a touch of a button does not amount to idleness of the mind, but rather, the idea of using the search engine is self-fulfilling.
Fundamentally, no stupid mind can navigate around the internet trying to seek knowledge and expand neither his nor her scope of understanding. It is perhaps important that I table the essence of for which the search engine was established to serve.
The need for faster access to information has been there since the historical moments. It may be necessary to state that Google is not solely responsible for making the minds stupid, but if in case stupidity exists, individuals are virtually responsible for it.
Research calls for moral and professional responsibility. Indeed no individual can now take another person’s piece of work and present for marking. For many decades, people have delivered their research materials at various level, whose ownership has been suspect.
These presentations went unnoticed since no tool was in place to ensure originality and authenticity of these materials (Leven 11).
Today, Google take up a position of faster access and navigation through any form of data and information previously completed by various researchers. It is worth not6ing that plagiarism is an academic and professional offence whose image does not does not occupy space in the realms of research.
Nothing can be wrong if someone wants to learn about a given phenomenon or subject. Let us imagine the trouble that one would go through searching into the entire book looking for a specific piece of information. Firstly, the essence of time serves as the best rubric for continuous use of search engines like Google and yahoo.
The essence of the search tools in facilitation the access to information serves far-reaching importance in cushioning academicians against the implications of time3 wastage. Traditionally, the process of looking for information, processing and presenting was too long.
This led to delayed spread of knowledge to the intended destinations and people. Because the spread of information has contributed to the emergence of numerous innovations through creative imaginations, it follows that technological tools should be made available, accessible and efficient in achieving this noble course.
Google represents the common struggle that people have engaged in though it achieves this objective though in a more convenient manner (Sherman 110). It still resembles that act of flipping through voluminous pages of old books to look for a specific index, words, or phrase.
This engine should be viewed as a facilitator of finding information within short span of time without much struggle. Additionally, traditional mode of looking for information has been limited in scope and approach. It is critical to examine the extent to which this search engine has demanded of us to make and unite various pieces of information to emerge with a unique piece.
Today, people can now access various sources, books, articles, and journals in order to come up with a succinct piece that reflects the demands of dynamic world. Initially, we have been restricted in the manner and scope of knowledge in which our home libraries have been the order of the day in establishing what we consume.
Growth and development of academicians cannot depend upon physical information whose nature of study is tiring and exhaustive.
Let us take the introduction of scientific calculators, which automatically gives answers to mathematical problems. Before this technology came in, complex mathematical problems could take numerous days or hours before arriving at an answer by manually performing the calculations. Now, everyone began using these tools in solving their problems in mathematics and other scenarios.
However, even though this is the order of the day, does this mean that we are eventually being made stupid, or is it just a sheer adaptation to the changing world and times? Should humanity revert to the olden days and mode of doing things in order to avoid being stupid?
Can it be fundamentally correct to propose that we have been made stupid by cars by letting go on walking? Should people stop listening and using digital music, videos and films and revert to analog forms of entertainment without appreciating the new ones?
Perhaps these questions should be essential in demonstrating the significant role played by Google in illuminating the minds of people, rather than making them stupid (Jones 112). Anyone who has stopped thinking in anew style and manner of doing things merits falling in the classification of stupid beings.
Those who have perhaps sought to revert to the traditional ways of searching for information by shutting the computers have convinced themselves that print media is virtually different from electronic media. To depart from using high-tech tools that gives you what you need in a real-time mode serves to demonstrate some sense of “stupidity of the mind.”
In conclusion, the creation of Google and other search engines has greatly facilitated access to crucial information in a timely manner as compared to the traditional modes.
Conclusion
Although it may be true that individuals have been made inactive in thinking because of the readily available information, this availability has enabled a successful growth of knowledge. For example, Google has served critical roles in making available relevant information in real time (Sherman 110).
Therefore, it is not exclusively true that Google serves as the means to achieving the necessary ends, but not an end in itself.
The idea that Google widens the scope of our minds allows us to imagine of the troubles suffered by our ancestors during the historical moments (Books LLC, General Books LLC 114). To create and develop a sense of imagination about a subject that makes you stupid reveals just how the problem resides in you.
To blame computer engineers and developers of programs for one’s growing stupidity demonstrates that perhaps one has decided to stop engaging in critical thinking and reverted to blame-games. Finally, the fundamental roles played by the search engines such as Google remain important in ensuring ease of acquisition of knowledge.
Works Cited
Books LLC, General Books LLC. 2008 Works: Is Google Making Us stupid? I Love the World, Barrack Obama Hope poster, Texas Medal of Honor Memorial, Playing Gods. New York: General Books, 2010. Print.
Jones, Kristopher. Search Engine Optimization: Your vision blue print for effective internet Marketing. New York: John Willey and Sons, 2010.
Leven, Mark. An Introduction to Search engines and web navigation. New York: John Willey and Sons, 2010. Print. 111.
Schlesinger, Andrea. The Death of “Why?” The Decline of Questioning and the future of Demogracy. Berret Koehler Publishers, 2009. Print.
Sherman, Chris. Google Power: Unleash the full potential of Google. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005. Print.