[Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"

[Joe Schallan]

On Sunday, 6/15/08, Marianne Follis <Marianne.Follis at cityofcarrollton.com> wrote:

> . . . Does thinking, reading and processing information
> differently necessarily mean that we are becoming stupid?
> 
> You could argue that even if we are not delving as deeply
> into information, aren't we encountering more of it?


I think that is exactly Nicholas Carr's point -- that we are
delving less deeply into information. Our understanding becomes
like what Nebraskans used to say about the Platte River: A mile
wide and an inch deep.

And, yes, I think Carr's central point is that the way the
net now leads us to process information *is* making us more
stupid, if, by "stupid," we mean having mostly superficial
knowledge and scattered attention.

Encountering more information does not necessarily equate
with understanding, just as having access to 12,000
varieties of processed foods does not equate with better
nutrition.

But I suppose it all depends on what you think stupidity is.

The title of the article was provocative, of course, as was
my post. Because this is worth thinking about, and so you
do want to provoke.

I'd like to see studies of cognition that would shed light
on the effects of multitasking on learning. I've seen
such things before, as I recall, that not surprisingly
indicate that we don't do as well on grasp and recall
when we're distracted.

The college students quoted by Charles Cooper in his CNET
blog post took pride in their ability to multitask. I am
skeptical that they will get as much from a lecture
if they are busy at the same time with their
Facebook pages, instant messaging, and online shopping.
(Not to  mention the sheer rudeness of such behavior,
though I imagine *that* escapes them entirely. If
your mom and dad are spending $25,000 each year so
you can learn from a college professor, I'd be
inclined to think you may want to politely listen to
what she has to say to you.)

Certainly by now someone has tested understanding
of concepts and recall of data under differing
conditions. Is there any reason to suppose that
distraction and inattention will do anything other
than degrade performance of those tasks?

College students are for the most part young fools
(though I will go to hell and back for them when
I serve them as a librarian) and think they are
unique, that they have discovered new truths, and that
the lessons of human experience have been suspended in
their cases.

I was such a fool. Probably bigger than most. And
it being the sixties, the culture was willing to
fully indulge my foolishness instead of correcting
it. Many businesspeople found you could turn quite a
few bucks on indulging the foolishness of the young.

Those businesspeople are with us yet, and they
*love* the net.

I feel bad, though, that the kids will never savor
the delights of long attention and contemplation,
nor the illumination that comes therefrom.

We've hired a high school student to help
patrons on computers 10 hours a week. He's
good -- he can show patrons how to do basic stuff
in Word and Excel, how to print, how to attach files
to email messages, and so on, and this helps us a
lot and takes some pressure off a busy desk.

(And he's a sure sign that for what a lot of patrons
now want from the desk, we certainly don't need
degreed professionals.)

He told me he has a female friend who he swears
sent and received 12,000 text messages in one
month. I expressed skepticism after I did a little
mental math -- 400 a day! Then I thought that
if she is a teen who only sleeps four hours a night,
then it may be only 20 texts an hour -- one every
three minutes. With a good cell phone and flying
thumbs, I imagine handling that level of traffic
is doable.

Still, the image of a teen coping with 12,000
text messages a month (and I still assume our
teen helper was grossly exaggerating) is
horrifying. When is time to eat, bathe,
converse with friends, much less read and study?
When is time, indeed, for some sort of real life?

The poor thing. If true, this isn't much better
than heroin.

Patrons come to my library often wearing the
little Bluetooth earsets so that they can be
constantly connected to their phones. I can't
imagine being chained to a device in that way,
with the whole world just ten digits away
from being able to yank my chain at any time.
This is progress?

Is multitasking and inundation with tyrant-
devices any sort of human life?  Quiet, please,
and give me a minute to think! (An hour would
be even better.)

I've drifted far off course. But, yeah, I'm
prepared to accept Nicholas Carr's thesis
that distraction and inattention make us
stupid.  Maybe even that reliance on
net-delivered infosnippets makes our
understanding of the world superficial.
And maybe even that it reprograms us to
have little patience for the long form.

Joe Schallan
Phoenix