[Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"

Tue Jun 17 14:19:40 EDT 2008

But it is a Question not a statement.  It also serves one of the main
purposes of a title, it grabs attention.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:12:18 -0500, "Marianne Follis"
<Marianne.Follis at cityofcarrollton.com> wrote:
> And yet the title isn't "Is the Internet changing the way we think?," it
> is "Is Google making us stupid?"  The title alone seems to condemn,
> which to many may seem hostile.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jsanderson at nngov.com [mailto:jsanderson at nngov.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:33 PM
> To: jschallan at yahoo.com
> Cc: Publib; Marianne Follis
> Subject: RE: [Publib] "Is Google making us stupid?"
> 
> Having now read the entire article I have to say I found it stimulating
> and
> informative.  It asks us to consider the long term effects of our ever
> greater use/dependence on technology based information searching. It is
> never wrong to reflect on how are world is changing both to the good and
> to
> the bad.  Which is which may be open to discussion (and isn't one of the
> points that we need to have that discussion and that it is not possible
> without reflection?)  The article seems to ask us to consider important
> things like the difference between knowledge and wisdom, fact gathering
> and
> thinking.  I do not see it as condeming technology as a fact gathering
> tool, but it does ask that we be aware of the impact it may have, an
> impact
> we may not notice on a day to day basis. To ask serious questions about
> important trends (and technologiey certainly qualifies) is not to
> condemn
> the trend and should not be seen as hostility.
> 
>       As to music, did they write any after Beethoven?
> (Just kidding, I like the Beatles)  Jim
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:52:08 -0700 (PDT), Joe Schallan
> <jschallan at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, 6/16/08, Marianne Follis
> <Marianne.Follis at cityofcarrollton.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> And I have to say I think longing for the good old days
>>> will get you no where.  Didn't the adults of the 50's
>>> think that Rock n Roll was going
>>> to lead to the downfall of our nation's youth?
>> 
>> Hmmm. Even as I wrote my post, I thought that it was only a matter of
> time
>> before someone dragged out the old-fogey card and played it.
>> 
>> This is very close to Godwin's Law, and I shall take credit and call
> it
>> Schallan's Law -- whenever someone expresses skepticism about
> technology,
>> meaningful discussion ends when the skeptic is implied to be an old
> fogey,
>> resistant to change.  Library managers, freshly back from conference
> with
>> New Ideas to complicate our service to our patrons, regularly employ
>> Schallan's Law to put the kibosh on closer examination.
>> 
>> I have reread my posts, and nowhere do I express longing for the good
> old
>> days. In my case, those were the 60s, and I think I made it clear that
> I
>> think though they now be old days indeed, they were never very good
> days.
>> 
>> 
>>> Please don't tell me you don't like rock!
>> 
>> 
>> I don't like rock.
>> 
>> I find it hopelessly short form and infantile, written expressly for
> the
>> attention-challenged and fatuous. In a nutshell, Sinatra sings for
> adults;
>> rockers sing for juveniles.
>> 
>> Though no one should take offense at my opinion. De gustibus non
>> disputandum est.
>> 
>> How I came to dislike rock is interesting insofar as it relates to
> Carr's
>> thesis that the style in which information is delivered can reprogram
> our
>> brains for better or worse.
>> 
>> Having come of age in the 60s and early 70s (my dad even putting the
>> kibosh on my scheme to take his truck/camper across country to attend
>> Woodstock), I was a guy who loved rock. Among my favorites: Jimi
> Hendrix,
>> Jim Morrison and the Doors, the Stones, Cream (Disraeli Gears and
> Wheels
>> of Fire), CSN&Y, The Band, Led Zeppelin, Buffalo Springfield, Jethro
> Tull,
>> and many others, and most of all, Bruce Springsteen.  Interestingly, I
>> especially liked "long-form," thematic rock, and thus Pink Floyd, the
>> Moody Blues, Tommy. The seven-minute "Light My Fire" was the only
> version
>> that interested me.
>> 
>> And then, late on, I discovered opera, and I have to say it killed
> most
> of
>> rock for me, as well as most of orchestral classical music, although
> not
>> jazz, Sinatra, or some country.  I just didn't hear the stuff like I
> used
>> to, and could not believe that I had ever taken it seriously.
>> 
>> So when Carr says a medium has the ability to reprogram our brains,
> the
>> point resonates with me.  A style of music sure as heck reprogrammed
> my
>> brain.
>> 
>> I would go on to a passioned defense of deep reading, but Karen has
>> already done it eloquently, and I again refer you to
> Freerangelibrarian.
>> 
>> How does Carr's thesis relate to what we do as librarians? It relates
> to
>> what we promote and endorse. For my part, I will be a long-form
>> evangelist, and try to make converts. I will have no part in
> programming
>> that makes war on reading.
>> 
>> What we do isn't a profession; it is a calling. We must carefully
> consider
>> what we are incentivizing with the limited resources at our disposal.
> We
>> aren't removing gallstones or laying pipe; we are ministering to
> minds.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Brothers and sisters, you may now take your hands off the computer.
>> 
>> Joe Schallan
>> Phoenix
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Publib mailing list
>> Publib at webjunction.org
>> http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/publib