[Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"

[Rob Amend]

Good points, Lesley. I will take some time to *think* about them before
responding.

Thanks,
Rob
-- 
Rob Amend
Reference Librarian
rob.amend at gmail.com
blog.reftechrob.com


On 6/16/08, Knieriem, Lesley <lknieriem at rogersark.org> wrote:
>
>  Actually, yes.  Those "old guys" were right.  And the "deluge of
> information" is hardly a new phenomenon – the human brain has always soaked
> up as much information as it could possibly manage.  It's just that once we
> were filtering and processing the myriad bird calls in the forest, the scent
> of rain in the air, the give  of the ground beneath or feet; now it's the
> threading of the messages on the screen, the speed of the processor, the
> ratio of text to image.  It is as foolish to say that we used to be
> "information-poor" as it is to say that now we are "context-deprived."
>
>
>
> Yet I think that it is still worthwhile to look at the change in the **
> nature** of that context.
>
>
>
>  If you read Carr's essay carefully (and I realize that a WHOLE FIVE PAGES,
> if was quite an effort to do so) he acknowledges that what he is descrying
> may be interpreted as the eternal grump against the new;  but he also does
> refer to the ways in which past technological changes in the way we process
> information have indeed meant lost mental capacities as well as gains.  Just
> think of the most basic transformation of all – from the oral to the written
> word – and think about how much we have lost in the interpersonal,
> whole-body, interactive form of communication along with what we have gained
> in permanence and privacy.  The point of a trade-off is that it is neither
> all Win nor all Lose.
>
>
>
> I see this type of thinking very much nowadays in a younger generation of
> librarians in terms of readers advisory, for example.  There is access to a
> huge database of titles and tools (both online and in the "mental database")
> that I would never have dreamed of when I went to library school
> mmmphty-mmph years ago.  But there is also a distressing dearth of context,
> of subtle interconnections of tone, style, mood, and theme, that cannot be
> easily captured in the shallow categories of "read-alikes" and "subject
> classification."  I can see the difference when someone asks for "a book
> like this" – as I mentally place "this book" in the context of an entire
> sweeping bibliographic essay, and try to narrow it down gradually through
> the different categories of "genre" "character types" and "literary style",
> while my more Google-trained co-workers jump to mental links of  "this
> title" to "that" and "that" and "that" individual book.  I would not say
> that one approach is "better" than the other.  But I would say that there is
> an entire way of thinking that seems to be disappearing, that has just as
> much – or as little – value as the ability to construct and decode dense
> Jamesian prose, or deduce meaning from the dogears and smudging on a
> well-thumbed page.
>
>
>
> Of course, I realize that I have now outed myself as a hopeless old Luddite
> who just can't "cope with the new."
>
>
>
> Creakily yours,
>
>
>
> Lesley Knieriem
>
> Rogers Public Library
>
> Rogers AR
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Rob Amend [mailto:rob.amend at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 16, 2008 9:59 AM
> *To:* Publib
> *Subject:* Re: [Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"
>
>
>
> "The index is making us stupid. It used to be that when you wanted
> information, you would find a likely book and read the whole thing, hoping
> to find what you were looking for. *Now*, all you have to do is go to the
> back of the book and look for the word that will lead you to the fact you
> seek. Sheer laziness."
>
>
>
> Some Old Guy,
>
> A Long Time Ago
>
>
>
> "Gutenberg is making us stupid. It used to be that, if you wanted to learn
> something, you would ask someone who learned from someone who had a
> handwritten copy of a handwritten copy of a handwritten copy of a book. Now,
> people can buy their own exact copies of a first publication, and learn
> directly from the author. Where will it end?"
>
>
>
> Another Old Guy,
>
> A Long Time Ago
>
>
>
> Google is not the Internet. This deluge of information is here to stay.
> We'd better make our peace with it, and create tools to help us sift through
> it all--like Google.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Rob Amend
> Reference Librarian
> rob.amend at gmail.com
> blog.reftechrob.com
>
> ------------------------------
> The Information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended
> only for the named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you
> must not copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it. If you have
> received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender. Any unauthorized
> disclosure of the information contained in this e-mail is strictly
> prohibited. The views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are the sender's
> own and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the City of
> Rogers.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Publib mailing list
> Publib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/publib
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/publib/attachments/20080616/abaee9dd/attachment.htm