jump to navigation

Haiku Culture? February 23, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Culture, Dwight Furrow's Posts.

Since the advent of new computer and network technologies, commentators have been worried that the “web” was changing our intellectual abilities, distracating us with superficial facts in short bursts of information, rather than engaging with lengthy analyses that require focused thought and longer attention spans.

Via Ars Technica, The Pew Internet & American Life project polled 895 Internet experts to see what they thought of such doom-laden prophecies.

Here is a smattering of opinion:

Peter Norvig. Google’s Research Director, not surprisingly, defends the merits of skimming, saying that it sets the stage for more prolonged mental effort. As to whether people want to make that effort, it remains up to them.

“My conclusion is that when the only information on the topic is a handful of essays or books, the best strategy is to read these works with total concentration. But when you have access to thousands of articles, blogs, videos, and people with expertise on the topic, a good strategy is to skim first to get an overview. Skimming and concentrating can and should coexist.”

Dean Bubley, wireless industry consultant, says that the Web is merely the extension of a process that has been going on for millennia: using technology to free up our minds for other tasks.

“I think that certain tasks will be ‘offloaded’ to Google or other Internet services rather than performed in the mind, especially remembering minor details. But really, that’s a role that paper has taken over many centuries: did Gutenberg make us stupid?”

Andreas Kluth, a writer with The Economist, agrees. “This is the continuation ad infinitum of the process launched by abacuses and calculators: we have become more ‘stupid’ by losing our arithmetic skills but more intelligent at evaluating numbers.”

Sandra Kelly of 3M says that whether “Google makes you stupid” or not is up to you. “I don’t think having access to information can ever make anyone stupider. I don’t think an adult IQ can be influenced much either way by reading anything and I would guess that smart people use the Internet for smart things and stupid people use it for stupid things in the same way that smart people read literature and stupid people read crap fiction.”

But there are those who endorse the “doom and gloom” scenario:

Andrew Nachison, cofounder of We Media, argues that access to so much digital knowledge might be edging out other kinds of knowing, leaving us to drown in a sea of facts.

“It has confused and overwhelmed us with choices, and with sources that are not easily differentiated or verified. Perhaps it’s even alienated us from the physical world itself—from knowledge and intelligence that comes from seeing, touching, hearing, breathing, and tasting life. From looking into someone’s eyes and having them look back into ours. Perhaps it’s made us impatient, or shortened our attention spans, or diminished our ability to understand long thoughts. It’s enlightened anxiety. We know more than ever, and this makes us crazy.”

Nick Carr. Carr sticks to his guns. It’s not that IQ scores are going down, but that the change in mental activity promoted by long exposure to Google and the Web has real problems.

“What the ‘Net does is shift the emphasis of our intelligence, away from what might be called a meditative or contemplative intelligence and more toward what might be called a utilitarian intelligence. The price of zipping among lots of bits of information is a loss of depth in our thinking.”

As someone who engages in focused, lengthy analysis for a living I can’t say the new technologies have influenced my cognitive “style”. But the real danger I suppose is that these technologies could influence our reading preferences. If we get “intellectual payoff” from short bursts of information will we want to engage in deeper analyses anymore?

Some of the people interviewed predict we will lose our interest in longer pieces that require focused attention:

Clay Shirky, a professor at NYU and a prolific author himself, says that over the next decade, “Long-form expressive fiction will suffer (though this suffering has been more or less constant since the invention of radio) while all numeric and graphic forms of rendering knowledge, from the creation and use of databases to all forms of visual display of data will be in a golden age, with ordinary nonfiction writing getting a modest boost. So, English majors lose, engineering wins, and what looks like an Up or Down question says more about the demographic of the answerer than any prediction of the future.”

I’m not convinced that we will lose our interest in in-depth analysis or long-form expression. Anyone who seeks to genuinely understand something will be dissatisfied with superficial analyses. And the pleasures of long-form expressive fiction are distinctly different from the pleasures of brief narratives. The often reported decline in the reading of fiction today has more to do with the lack of time and a wider variety of options for relaxation than an inability or unwillingness to concentrate. (The condensed narratives of film have their own virtues)

On the other hand, we may lose patience with lengthy stories or analyses that don’t repay the effort. This may make us less willing to invest the time in authors with no track record. New writers may have difficulty getting noticed.

This post is quite long. Congratulations if you made it to the end!

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com



1. andreaskluth - February 23, 2010

What an honor that my quotation made it into your title bar. 😉

2. Michael Mussachia - February 24, 2010

A Pew survey done last month found that “Millennials,” the generation born after 1980 and the first generation to come of age in the new millennium, identify their generation by their electronics communications technology and the social network made possible by that technology. No previous generation has defined themselves to this degree by technology. “Steeped in digital technology and social media, they treat their multitasking handheld gadgets almost like a body part — for better and worse,” the report says. Most of these tweens and teens take their cell phones to bed with them and admit to texting while driving. When texting, have their own, English-derived “language.” They watch less TV but use some kind of electronic device up to 8 or more hours a day. It seems they have to be constantly “connected,” be it via their cell phones or online video games.
One of the things that seems to be coming out of this is that increasing numbers of these hi-tech youngsters have difficulty relating to earlier, pre-hi-tech times. For instance, they seem relatively uninterested in history as a subject. I know I’m generalizing here, but numerous articles over the past few years as well as conversations with history teachers, both at Mesa and at my kids’ high school, suggests that this is the case for many in this generation. (As a personal aside, I’m a father of two teens, and I’m considered ancient history by both of them and their friends since I don’t use many of these electronic devices or social networking sites like MySpace, Facebook or Twitter. Even worse, as far as my kids are concerned, I didn’t have computers, the Internet, game consoles, cell phones, etc. when I grew up in “ancient times.”)
Along with a lack of interest in history, many Millennials seem to have difficulty relating to significant characters of the distant past. It seems that many Millennials, for example, have difficulty relating to ancient stories of long-haired, bearded men in robes and sandals preaching “The end is near, repent and be saved,” i.e., Biblical stories. My personal impression is that these kids are far less interested in religion that any previous generation. They don’t seem to even be interested in a critical, scientific, historical perspective on religion. As one kid told me “That stuff’s not part of our world except in video games,” that is, except in “god games” and video games featuring demons, witches and such. Another source for these impressions is the increasing number of You Tube channels and videos making fun of religious conservatives like they’re Neanderthals. So, my question is, Is the rapid increase in electronic communications technology and the young generation being constantly electronically connected moving them away from ancient fable- and ancient prophet-type religious beliefs? Can anyone refer me to any social science research that touches on this issue?

3. Lula - March 9, 2010

This is why I like philosophyonthemesa.com. Awesome post.

Leave a Reply to andreaskluth Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: