The way in which people abuse the internet is causing them to lose valuable skills, skills that are necessary for humans to be able to interact with the world and the people who live in it. We have re-discovered new ways to enjoy learning in a social setting. I find it more likely that other factors such as age, ambient light, or a smartphone buzzing in your pocket are more likely at fault. Then, Carr ventures that the cognitive impact of the Internet may be far more encompassing than any other previous intellectual technology because the Internet is gradually performing the services of most intellectual technologies, thus replacing them. We enter into a world of an abundance of information, as we click on links to gather data. Yet, Carr does not assert this rewiring ideas as fact and even acknowledges that his perspective may be flawed like others have been in the past. Second, the author is making a good point by using the different elements of a rhetorical analysis to convince his audience.
I would read a paragraph of what Carr was saying and then dismiss it completely and go on my phone or search something up on another tab. Carr admits that while a recent study at University College London suggests there may be some evidence that the internet is negatively effecting the brain, no long-term studies have been done. Yes, our new ready access to information has definitely allowed us to spread wide, and by definition somewhat thinner. The internet never motivates us to slow down. Carr feels the time he spends online is rewiring his brain. Carr speaks to how he and his friends are noticing a change in how they read books.
We don't want to speak like Twitter. In the most subtle of ways, new technologies tend to change our original habits as well as the way we think. Is Google making us stupid? Carr gives a brief example of how neurons can be made and broke depending on what things shape the way things are done. Everyone except my 5- and 3-year-old will read for an hour. I do not do research daily, and I can see how the way he would do research would change dramatically. Innovation comes from pulling together new ideas from existing information. He backed up his argument with a wide range of evidence which made it stronger as it showed a variety of reasons for how intellectual technologies have changed the way that humans process information.
Carr is exceptionally good at using analogies and metaphors. In addition, I will be analyzing Carr's method using the Toulmin model; where I will break down his claims, data, warrants, backing and rebuttals that he may use through out his article. It suggests a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized. We are increasingly encaged, he argues, but the invisibility of our high-tech snares gives us the illusion of freedom. If this trend goes on, then we as humans are putting ourselves at greater risks of not been able to fully realize and utilize the power of our brains, i.
We ought to be reading more books—or so I think. I was concerned how the first paragraph would relate to the rest of the article, but he did a good job of tying it all into a single theme. Lastly, Carr also shows as an example of an opinion that is in a very minute minority, yet through the exemplary use of rhetorical tactics, still manages to hold a persuasive point, in that, Carr is a success in his argument. Carr could be correct, society may become more and more simple minded and leave extended thinking in the past with paper text. As the clock represents our sense of time, the internet has become something that influences our thought processes, reading abilities, research techniques, and so much more.
Nicholas Carr, the author of the 2008 Atlantic cover story , confronts this paradox in his new book, , analyzing the many contemporary fields in which software assists human cognition, from medical diagnostic aids to architectural modeling programs. Today, computers often play both roles. A prominent physician expressed the view that the extensive use of telegram technology was breeding a wave of mental illness. People responded to books with reviews, with articles, and with new books. No real effort is being put into research or writing or even reading. Drawing on the terabytes of behavioral data it collects through its search engine and other sites, it carries out thousands of experiments a day, according to the Harvard Business Review, and it uses the results to refine the algorithms that increasingly control how people find information and extract meaning from it.
Once we could write properly, now we only text. His whole argument will fall apart under the scrutiny of a group that most likely does not want to find something as key to their lives as the Internet, as a possible source of problems. Google has made us lazy in terms of how we research and access data. One of the pioneers in neuroplasticity research, , later added his own comment to the discussion, stating that he had given a talk at Google in 2008 in which he had asked the audience the same question that Carr asked in his essay. Apart from that, I think that Carr formed an intriguing essay using many different writing tools. This gave the readers even more incentive to consider what he was saying.
This sentiments by the author are not unique to him since it is what other people are going through. Carr writes: The Internet promises to have particularly far-reaching effects on cognition. A study led some to wonder whether a breadth of brain activity—which was shown to occur while users performed Internet searches in the study's scans—actually facilitated reading and cognition or possibly overburdened the mind; and what quality of thought could be determined by the additional presence of brain activity in regions known to control decision-making and complex reasoning skills. Carr presents his arguments in a way that his readers could easily agree. I also believe that it gave me reason to think about how the progression of events led up what Google is making us think now. Old media have little choice but to play by the new-media rules. He went on to point out that the richness of ones thoughts, memory and personalities hinges on once capacity to focus the brain and sustain concentration Carr, 2010.
However, I think that his opening which began with a quote from A Space Odyssey was confusing and just not an interesting way to start the essay. Carr further draws on Wolf's work, particularly her 2007 book Proust and the Squid, to relate his argument to the way in which neural circuits in the reading brain are specifically shaped by the demands particular to each written language, such as Chinese, Japanese, and alphabet-based scripts. But something interesting happened every time we demonstrated this technology. However, the most intriguing question is, should we seek to have our processing speed increased or improved? Batson has been among the leaders in the field of educational technology for 25 years, the last 10 as an electronic portfolio expert and leader. And even much harder to understand how technology can actually recapture and re-enable human abilities.
I enjoyed the connection that was made between a robot having more emotions than the human being, it was a nice way to end the article. He argues that the availability of so much information has diminished the ability to concentrate on reading, referencing stories of literary types who no longer Carr effectively gains ground with his audience, regardless of whether they are a literary type or one who has just happened across the article. He fears we will think collectively and quick thinking for ourselves, again becoming more like a computer system. We want to hear what you think about this article. In three major news publications, three major essayists have grappled with this question and come to completely different conclusions. One of the most important tools Carr utilizes in his article is the rhetorical strategy of Prolepsis, a rhetorical tactic of addressing possible arguments against his position in advance.