Reading Response #2

Chris Peake

When it comes to the topic of the internet and its plethora of knowledge, most of us will agree the new waves of technologies are becoming more and more readily available. Information is always just a click away. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the subject of how it may be affecting the way we think and process things. Whereas some are convinced that the mass amounts of information and convenience the internet will only lead to bigger and better thing; others maintain that the internet might be reprogramming our minds process the information. Nicholas Carr gives very good insight on the matter, weighing out the pros and cons of the debate while encouraging one to at least ponder the coming of new technologies. It seems to me that Carr’s central claim is that though there may be many advantages that come of mountains of knowledge at the tips of our fingers, it being compressed and categorized into “a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized” in such a way that it trains our thought pattern to merely get the gist of many ideas and concepts rather than mentally diving deep into the material. Carr insist, “The kind of deep reading that sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds.”

Towards the end of the article Carr states “Maybe I’m just a worrywart. Just as there’s a tendency to glorify technological progress, these’s a countertendency to expect the worst of every new tool or machine.” Right before this passage in the article, it is brought up that at other times in history people have been skeptical of new media forms. People such as Hieronico Squarciafico and Socrates both believed that the new technologies of their time would make people “less studious” and “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful” but the changes that they suggested would dim the thought process instead made radical changes in how we live today. This claim embodies the entire article I feel like because Carr voices skepticism throughout the article but also in a way glorifies the usefulness and wide media surge. While he suggests that, “media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought.” I feel like I personally might be testimate to Carr’s central claim.

Throughout my schooling I was for the most part taught to use the internet as my primary hub for research. When I went to write a book report or paper, I would almost instantly go to the internet in seeking out abbreviations of the sought subject matter. If in English class we were told to read a book and then analyze the book for deeper meanings and metaphors that were entwined into the story, but why read and analyze an entire book when you can read a summarized paragraph of the entire text along with all the analogies and metaphors that themed the story. It just seems logical and more efficient to skip authors long and fancy novel and just get basic information needed from the text. At the end of my first reading response I mentioned that my mind is always going a million miles a minute and that I had a very difficult time organizing all my thoughts into a fluid idea. Seemingly my thought process is boiled down in Carr’s article to be efficient and immediate instead of “the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction”. Maybe my mind going a million miles a minute is a reflection of internet and its way of presenting ideas and information.