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 15th 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/
