Benefits of the Internet

Lawrence Besong

Professor Christopher Werry

RWS 100

15 December 2014

Benefits of the Internet

Imagine yourself at home or in a library, surrounded by piles of books that you have been forced to read, with paper and pen in hand.  Flipping through page after page, reading and writing everything down in order to process the material.  These books were your only means of learning, collecting information, and gathering research.  Interaction with our peers was also different.  Communication happened in person, through the mail, or talking over the telephone.  Believe it or not, there was a time before the Internet existed and reading books, newspapers and magazines were our pathways to knowledge.  Social interactions were mainly done in person.  The Internet has created another accessible pathway, through our fingertips.  The discovery of the Internet has proven to be one of the most beneficial technological innovations known to man.  Now, instead of being surrounded by books and people, we have access to information and social interactions through a computer or cell phone screen.  Not all may agree that the Internet has benefitted today’s society.  Just as with any other debate, there are two sides to everything.  Nicholas Carr and Clive Thompson are on opposing sides when it comes to realizing the benefits of the Internet when it comes to reading, writing, and our overall cognitive behavior.  In his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, Carr argues that the Internet has a negative effect on how we read, write and, essentially, how we think.  On the other hand, Clive Thompson believes that the Internet has led to advancements in our writing and thought processes, thus making the Internet beneficial to society in many ways.  He expresses this in his excerpt, “Public Thinking” from his book, Smarter Than You Think.  Although both authors present a strong argument for their particular point of view, I believe that humans have benefitted greatly from the discovery of the Internet.

Carr and Thompson are just two of many people who have researched the effects of the Internet on society’s writing abilities.  The Pew Research Center studied how the evolving technological environment impacted student writing and the way teachers taught writing.  They presented their research in their report, “The Impact of Digital Tools on Student Writing and How Writing is Taught in Schools”.  Although Carr remains on the negative side of the Internet debate, in his article, he mentions a story about Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher and poet, who began writing again after purchasing a typewriter.  Nietzsche’s vision had begun to fail, and he was having difficulty focusing on a page.  Due to the painful headaches, he had to limit his writing.  With the help of the typewriter, a technological advancement during that time, he was able to begin writing again.  “Once he had mastered touch-typing, he was able to write with his eyes closed, using only the top of his fingers.  Words could once again flow from his mind to the page” (Carr).  Technological advances allowed Nietzsche to continue writing, presenting him with another means of expressing his thoughts into written words.  The Internet gives us many opportunities to express ourselves in writing.  The Internet gives students a platform to be able to write and express their thoughts.  Students today are writing more than ever, through social media, blogs, comments, etc.  Although both teachers and students would not consider this “formal writing”, teachers acknowledge this a type of “informal writing”, but a form of writing nonetheless.  One teacher expresses, “The informality of the written word and how students use the language is the downside of technology, but the upside is that students are communicating in the written form much more than I ever did at that age” (Purcell, Buchanan, Friedrich).  Teachers agree that the informality of Internet writing can be considered a downside, but formality can be taught in the classroom.  The fact that students enjoy writing due to the technological advancements takes precedence over having to teach the “acceptable” way of writing.  Even the finest of writers begin expressing their thoughts in an informal way before evaluating and editing their pieces.  In “Public Thinking”, Thompson states that, “By putting half-formed thoughts on the page, we externalize them and are able to evaluate them much more objectively.  This is why writers often find that it’s only when they start writing that they figure out what they want to say” (Thompson 51). Writing is a process and the Internet allows our writing to progress.  We are given many opportunities to express our thoughts, which society seems to be taking complete advantage of.

There are about 1.5 billion people on the Internet.  That means that it is quite possible that 1.5 billion people may have access to anything that you may write or post on the Internet, whether it be on a website or a personal social media account.  That may put a lot of pressure on your abilities to perform, whether it is in sports, music, and even writing.  I have personally felt the pressure to perform.  Being the captain of the basketball team, I knew that everyone in the stands relied on me to make the great play or score most of the points.  I felt that pressure from the audience, and it helped me perform to the best of my abilities.  In “Public Thinking”, Thompson calls this the “audience effect – the shift in our performance when we know people are watching.”  Studies have shown that the audience effect have had a positive impact on performance, including the positive effects on writing over the Internet.  That pressure could be felt in small things like a status update on Facebook, or a tweet on Twitter.  Often times I find myself rereading what I wrote, thinking to myself, “Does that make sense? Did I spell that right?  What will people think?”  In the research collected from teachers by the Pew Research Center, “52% strongly agree and 44% agree that today’s digital technologies allow students to share their work with a wider and more varied audience” (Purcell, Buchanan, Friedrich).  With their ability to share their writing to a more varied audience, students spend more time organizing their ideas before beginning to write.  They are more conscious of their writing, knowing that a larger audience may possibly be exposed to it.  They feel more invested and become more creative with their expression in words. 

Aside from the opportunities for writing, collaboration is a huge advantage of the Internet and the innovation of technology.  With the popularity of social media sites and the ability to network and comment, worldwide collaboration over the Internet is entirely feasible.  We have access to a plethora of information.  In his article, Carr states Google’s mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” (Carr).  If we should ever have a thought pop into our head, we have to ability to “google” it.  Google will provide hundreds of links that will lead us to information and people who may have previously expressed the exact same thoughts.  This allows us the opportunity to collaborate with others locally or across the world.  Thompson also mentions Google when he writes, “Anyone who’s googled their favorite hobby, food, or political subject has immediately discovered that there’s some teeming site devoted to servicing the infinitesimal fraction of the public that shares their otherwise wildly obscure obsession” (Thompson 58).  He adds, “Propelled by the hyperlink – the ability of anyone to link to anyone else – the Internet is a connection-making machine” (Thompson 58).  The Internet allows us to reach people and information that we otherwise may never have come across.  According to research done by the Pew Research Center on writing teachers, “23% strongly agree and 56% agree that today’s digital technologies encourage greater collaboration among students” (Purcell, Buchanan, Friedrich).  Rheingold describes social media as “networked digital media such as Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and wikis – [that] enable people to socialize, organize, learn, play, and engage in commerce” (Rheingold).  Rheingold addresses the positive connection between the Internet and collaboration when he states that “using the technologies and techniques of attention and participation allows people to work together collaboratively in ways that were too difficult or expensive to attempt before the advent of social media” (Rheingold).  Using the Internet and social media allows us to communicate with a larger group of people more quickly than ever before.  This can be extremely beneficial during a time of disaster, when important information must be quickly spread or gathered.  Often times, you will find breaking news being tweeted before it articles can be written about them on major news websites.  Collaboration through social media and the Internet has been proven to be a great advantage.

Of course there was a time before the Internet.  I have heard stories from people close to me about times when they would have to research information using an Encyclopedia or look up phone numbers using a phone book.  There was a time when you had to use a paper map to navigate around cities or when you had to call a landline in order to communicate with a friend.  As I mentioned before, there are always two sides.  Carr believes that the Internet is causing our though processes to become computer-like.  Thompson believes that the Internet has given us a platform to perform better, and collaborate far beyond what we thought could be possible.  Whether you agree with Carr or Thompson, it is easy to see how the Internet has affected society’s abilities to read, write and think.  The Internet truly has its advantages that we can see and benefit from today. 

           

Works Cited

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 01 July 2008. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.

Purcell, Kristen, Judy Buchanan, and Linda Friedrich. "The Impact of Digital Tools on Student Writing and How Writing Is Taught in Schools." Pew Research Centers Internet American Life Project RSS. N.p., 15 July 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2014.

Rheingold, Howard. "Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies." EDUCAUSE.edu. N.p., 7 Oct. 2010. Web. 7 Dec. 2014.

Thompson, Clive. “Public Thinking.” Smarter Than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better. N.p: Penguin, 2014. 45-69. Print.

Outline for Final Paper

Outline for Final Paper

Introduction:

• Hook (Quote or analogy related to title)
• Discuss Thompson’s article
• Statement of personal opinion connected to Thompson article
• Statement of personal opinion connected to Carr article
• Claims of Thompson
• Beneficial to self and society
• Claims of Carr
• Detrimental to society and cognition
• Personal opinion
• Agreement/Opposition

Body Paragraphs:

• “Impact of Digital Tools…”
• Studies show the beneficial impacts on student writing
• Connection between article with claims of Thompson
• Point of view of society
• Point of view of students
• Connection to personal experiences
• “Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media…”
• Thompson’s audience effect
• Blogs
• Internet and collaboration
• Disagreements
• Further research to show benefits of Internet and technology
• Personal experiences to add to conversation of possible benefits
• Connect to both Thompson and Carr

Conclusion:

• Relevance of article to self and society
• Restatement of articles’ claims and connections to personal agreements/disagreements
• Strengths and weaknesses of Thompson’s and Carr’s claims
• Connect to hook in introduction

HW Due Nov 24

In my final paper, I will be discussing Thompson’s text.  Thompson claims that technology and writing are 

connected in a positive way.  My anecdote will extend Thompson’s claims that technology has improved our 

abilities to collaborate and communicate with others.  I will also include Thompson’s sub claim about the 

audience effect on online writing and how individuals perform better with a larger audience.  I will reference 

articles and research, as well as provide personal experiences, to extend Thompson’s claims.

Purcell, Kristen, Judy Buchanan, and Linda Friedrich. "The Impact of Digital Tools on Student Writing and How Writing Is Taught in Schools." Pew Research Centers Internet American Life Project RSS. N.p., 16 July 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.
 
Rheingold, Howard. "Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies." EDUCAUSE.edu. N.p., 7 Oct. 2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

Examining the Tactics of Nicholas Carr’s Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Lawrence Besong

Professor Christopher Werry

RWS 100

17 November 2014

Examining the Tactics of Nicholas Carr’s Is Google Making Us Stupid?

            As the speed in which technology proliferates within our contemporary world hastens, it is entirely valid to question whether or not technology and digital spaces are truly bettering humanity and contributing to the endless pursuit of knowledge.  Do these advances function as tools to help us navigate the word around us, or have they become crutches inhibiting the development of human intellect?  This is the question Nicholas Carr poses in his article Is Google Making Us Stupid?  Carr argues that the wealth of information available from digital sources ultimately causes users easy access to a wealth of information rather than ‘digging’ for information and engaging in rigorous intellectual activity.  While this is a topic worth discussing, Carr’s manipulation of the rhetorical appeals ultimately leads to a flawed article failing to truly support a thought provoking assertion. Nicholas Carr’s reliance upon fear inducing pathos and a logical argument supported by simple anecdotal evidence leaves this reader ultimately unconvinced.

            By mentioning the plot of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, Nicholas Carr heavily relies upon pathos to instill fear in the reader.   Carr recounts the final moments of the film as the “malfunctioning machine [HAL], is calmly, coldly disconnecting the memory circuits that control its artificial brain. ‘Dave, my mind is going,’ HAL says, forlornly.  ‘I can feel it.  I can feel it.” (Carr).  The allusion to the film serves the purpose of mirroring Carr’s argument and emphasizing the intellect and intelligence leaving HAL, but this opening also taps into the fear of the reader.  It is safe to assume the audience of a publication such as The Atlantic to be of moderately high intellect.  It is also safe to assume the reader consuming such a publication holds pride in stimulating intellectual thought.  The description of HAL slowly and “forlornly” losing his intelligence immediately calls to mind the readers’ fear that they too are suffering from the same effects via technology.  The reader is immediately hooked and forced to read on fearing they too may suffer a similar fate to HAL and not even realize it.

            Additionally, when examining the pathos of Carr’s rhetorical argument, it becomes clear that he wishes to convey this potential for loss on the part of those who might not heed his warnings and the warnings of famous philosophical figures.  Carr paraphrases the experiences of Friedrich Nietzsche buying a typewriter, and, as a result, “his vision was failing and keeping his eyes focused on a page had become exhausting and painful often bring on crushing headaches.  He had been forced to curtail his writing, and he feared that he would soon have to give it up.”  While this was the effects of a simple typewriter—an object our contemporary technology can easily dwarf—what can we expect as a result of Internet reliance?  Thusly, the desired effect on the part of Carr is to instill a magnified fear into the readers forcing them to agree with his argument and point of view.  Additionally, one of the ways he also emphasizes the loss is by way of giving his mind and those of his colleagues up as an example of the potential pitfalls of the Internet.  By volunteering his own experiences with memory, patience, and the internet, Carr has attempted to elicit sympathy from his readership and further establish fear.  He is attempting to convey his argument as one that is being presented for the ‘public good’, and hoping that his argument will lend itself more credence as a result.  Carr’s argument goes a long way in furthering his claim against use of the Internet and technology, because it suggests that the problem in question is global in nature.

            Carr’s use of metaphor when he describes use of the Internet as a “jet ski” compared to a “scuba diver” makes for a very clear picture insofar as people having a much more shallow perception of the information they are consuming.  This example is an additional appeal to pathos based on the readers’ fears of becoming less intelligent.  This appeal furthers the author’s overall claim that the Internet has the potential to cause problems with memory and reading endurance.  By way of communicating urgent concern, Carr presents his argument as an imminent threat to The Atlantic’s readership.  One of the greatest fears of many people, and most likely a reader of his article, is losing one’s mental prowess or memory as they grow older, and presenting the argument that much of the world is expediting this process is a fearful and alarming concept for many people.

            While Carr relies heavily on appealing to his readers’ emotions, the logic of his argument suffers.  Making the assertion that human beings cognitive powers are diminishing in light of technology would lend itself to support using concrete data.  After all, there must be some real world studies on the effect of technology on the human brain.  The only study Carr references is by scholars from the University College London.  Based upon their study of academic practices, University College London observed “people using sites exhibited ‘a form of skimming activity’” (Carr) when conducting research.  While this observation is presented as support, any form of research requires the ability to skim and remove main ideas and important details.  Additionally, their evidence seems to be only addressing the quality of research and not any hard data relating brain function.  Using some facts, statistics, or scientific data as support would go a long way in strengthening his overall argument and his appeal to logos. 

Carr even acknowledges the flaws in his logic by admitting that his anecdotes and evidence “don’t prove much.”  While this may seem to address his lack of concrete evidence, it does not serve as an excuse.  Consequently, his admittance to lack of firm data beyond the anecdotal severely damages his ethos and credibility with the reader.  Acknowledging his arguments shortcomings is the rhetorical equivalent of ending a conversation with “but what do I know.”  Why should a writer who has no confidence in his own argument convince his readership of his claims and arguments?  Also detrimental to his logical appeal, Carr undermines his own argument.  In his writing, Carr provides anecdotal evidence throughout history of technological advances affecting intellect. In addition to his example of Nietzshe’s typewriter, Carr mentions the arrival of Gutenberg’s printing press in the 15^th century and “Socrates bemoan[ing] the development of writing” (Carr) in fear of the same intellectual degradation.  All these pieces of evidence prove is that technology has been in state of constant development since the dawn of time, and the development brings with it not a decrease in human intellect, but a change in how we communicate and experience intellectual pursuits.  The issue is much bigger than simple “Is Google making us stupid?” in terms of any manner of logical argument.

Carr’s argument with regard to creating a world in which attention spans are shorter, and information is presented only in a way that is ever more succinct does bring into question whether or not humanity is currently undergoing progress or simply change.  It is possible to have too much of a good thing, and currently there are no guidelines with regards to over consumption of technology, and in fact many are calling for Internet access to become a basic human right.  With smart phones becoming more wide spread every day, and many business abandoning their offices for digital alternatives, one has to wonder what can be done to combat the supposed problems Carr has observed.

It seems like the only way to avoid the perils of overreliance upon technology is to ‘buck the trend’—a trend Carr has not truly established as a convincing problem in the logical sense.  Humanity, the only ‘animal’ capable of advanced reasoning and understanding, is not a species that makes it easy for an individual to ‘go against the grain,’ and since technological advancements are happening every day, one is ultimately left to wonder if there is truly a problem regarding a dependence upon technology and whether or not an effective solution might exist.

Works Cited

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic [New York] 01 July 2008: Web. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/3/

Examining the Tactics of Nicholas Carr's Google Argument

Lawrence Besong

Professor Christopher Werry

RWS 100

11 November 2014

Examining the Tactics of Nicholas Carr's Google Argument

            Nicholas Carr's assertion that Google ( and actually the Internet as a whole) is making us stupid could be accurate for some people. The point of quick, complete access to a wide variety of information without having to 'dig' is a valid point, because everything from restaurants, to books, to movies, and beyond are all being found through the Internet now. Even our personal lives can be participated in (to a great degree) through the Internet, and Carr believes that this new mode of behavior is impacting the way people process information. One of the first direct examples pointed to by Carr is an inability for many to concentrate on reading books, and losing patience after reading only a few pages.
            Carr's argument appears to have merit, because there is quite a bit of data available with regard to attention spans growing shorter and shorter. It would appear as if many people are no longer concerned with 'enjoying the moment', but instead are looking for ways to make every moment count as much as possible. The incredible popularity of Twitter and the subsequent introduction of ever shorter 'short speak' created on there is growing in popularity. Efficiency and 'compact meaning' are being compressed to ever smaller sizes in order to 'get the gist' of a given event, idea, or other piece of information to readers.
            One of the major problems with this is that the details attached to many of these instances can be 'lost in translation', since they are altogether omitted much of the time. Evaluating the potential for the negative impacts of the Internet on people's minds, and them balancing against the negative impacts presented by Carr will be the goal of this paper. To assume that the incredible bounties of information and growth presented by the Internet would not have some draw backs or 'growing pains' would be foolhardy. Exploring both sides of this issue is vital in understanding what humanity stands to gain by continuing to jump into the Internet 'head first', and what might be revealed through patience and further research.
            When examining the pathos of Carr's rhetorical argument, it becomes clear that he wishes to convey the potential for loss on the part of those who might not heed his warnings. One of the ways in which he does this comes by way of giving his mind and those of his friends up as an example of the potential pitfalls of the Internet. By volunteering his own experience with memory, patience, and the Internet, Carr has attempted to elicit sympathy from his readership. He is attempting to convey his argument as one that is being presented for the 'public good', and hoping that this will lend it more credence as a result. The argument goes a long way in furthering his argument against using the Internet, because it suggests that the problem in question is global in nature.
            Carr's use of metaphor (a scuba diver vs. a jet ski) makes for a very clear picture insofar as people having a much more 'shallow' perception of the information they are consuming. This example is an appeal to pathos based on their fear of becoming less intelligent, being unable to see as much as they once did, and this could be an inference to no longer having as rich of a life after using the Internet for a long period of time. This argument furthers the author's overall claim of the Internet causing problems the memory of Internet users by way of creating urgent concern with regard to people being able to understand as much as they used to. One of the greatest fears of many people is losing their mental prowess or memory as they grow older, and presenting the argument that much of the world is expediting this process is an alarming concept for many people.
            Another assertion made by Carr is that the outside world is beginning to change in order to provide supposed advantages seen on the Internet in more traditional media. Newspapers, television shows, and other sources of entertainment and information have begun to offer shortened snippets of information. Packing as much content as possible into as small of a space as possible goes back to the idea that people who use the Internet are more prone to attempt to 'maximize' their time. Being thorough is still an option for many people who choose to read beyond a headline, but this behavior is becoming less and less common according to Carr. The effect on the Audience with regard to Carr's assertion in this case is a change in the way that readers view the outside world.
            Details becoming extinct could lead to apathy with regard to what is occurring in the world around us, and this could eventually lead to apathy being directed at what a given reader might find to be important. The central point of Carr is furthered greatly by this idea, because it creates a sense of fear with regard to how the world will treat upcoming crises and other news. Sensationalism in the media is often quite short lived, and most people are no longer shocked, scared, or excited in the slightest when they view what is occurring in the world by way of the news.
            The points brought up by Carr are incredibly poignant and applicable to the entire world currently, especially in light of our ever-quickening technological process. The fact that 3D printing especially is now bringing downloaded ideas into the physical world automatically brings up even more questions. A home can be 3D printed with concrete, a kidney can be 3D printed as well, and all the while no one is bothering to contemplate the consequences of these developments. All anyone knows is that they want to read the next snippet, have their life made more convenient, and the hastening degree to which new information is introduced is lessening our patience in the extreme.
            Still, there is a degree of hope though, and it lays in the fact that when someone is exceptionally passionate about a given subject or concept, they will still consume an entire article, book, or film therein. Human beings are certainly expediting the rate at which new information is being introduced into their lives, but at the same time they are also able to avoid useless information or 'chatter.' Discovering this fact could simply be driving many people to over-specialize, and to only seek out (passionately, at least) information which is applicable towards their own goals. Bearing in mind that many people are unable to determine what their own wants, desires, and/or goals are, it stands to reason that the Internet is not going to do their work for them in this context; but, the Internet can make it easier for people to expose themselves to as much information as possible, and hope that something appeals to them.
            Carr's argument with regard to creating a world in which attention spans are shorter, and information is presented only in a way that is ever more succinct does bring into question whether or not what humanity is currently undergoing is progress. It is possible to have 'too much of a good thing', and currently there are no guidelines with regard to 'over consumption' of the Internet, and in fact many are calling for Internet access to become a basic human right. With smart phones becoming more affordable every day, and many businesses abandoning their physical offices for digital alternatives, one has to wonder what can be done to combat the problems Carr has observed.
            It seems like the only way to avoid the perils of Internet usage is to 'buck the trend', and possibly appear to be abnormal. Humanity is not a species that makes it easy for an individual to 'go against the grain', and since everyone has to make their way with regard to other people in one way or another, one is left to wonder what solution might exist.

Works Cited

Carr, N. "Is Google making us stupid?." The Atlantic. N.p., 1 July 2008. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.        http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-       stupid/306868/3/.