Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The idea of advanced technology simplifying the process of interacting with information as something to be aware of has been around for centuries, creating a divide within communities. Thus, the pushback that innovative digital technology received at the time of its conception and introduction into the market was to be expected. However, even though substantial time has passed since the emergence of the Internet and the design of the Google Search Engine, debates concerning the ostensible threats that it poses to peoples analytical and data-processing skills remain robust. In his 2008 article, Is Google Making Us Stupid? , Nicholas Carr posits that the pace of progress might be a bit too fast for general audiences and that making the wrong turn becomes an exceedingly plausible threat. Despite having been written more than a decade ago, Carrs (2008) article provides grounds for a robust argument, pointing out the mismanaged adjustment to innovative technology and the subsequent loss of essential information management skills.
The change in data perception and processing, which Carr (2008) touches upon when examining the effects of digital technology and Google Search, particularly on peoples cognitive abilities, is among the key incisive observations. Indeed, with the rise in popularity and accessibility of digital tools and information repositories, an evident shift in data processing has been observed. Specifically, instead of thoughtful and considerate reading, skimming has been regarded as the most efficient way of information analysis, which has entailed several crucial consequences. Specifically, Carr (2008) asserts, For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind. The specified observation proves the existence of an inevitable change in the speed of information processing and, therefore, a shift in the cognitive analysis paradigm in most readers.
Furthermore, one must credit Carr (2008) for eliciting two essential points from his observation. Apart from recognizing the effects that Google tools and algorithms have on how people perceive data, he also identifies the restrictions that the said algorithms impose on peoples ability and attempts to deviate from the proposed pattern of thinking. Specifically, the statement in question represents a twofold argument, explaining that the Web as a newly designed universal medium not only filters types of data and methods of their analysis but also blocks the paths to other analytical approaches as a conduit. Moreover, the probability of failing to notice numerous nuances of the message and the desire to grasp the core idea without delving into much detail should be mentioned first as the essential outcomes of the observed change. Indeed, to his credit, Carr (2008) confirms that the process of reading online has turned into skimming, which leaves a substantial amount of useful details unnoticed.
However, where Carrs (2008) essay falls flat is the development of understanding why the observed phenomena occur. Specifically, Carr (2008) provides the essential statements for the conclusive statement concerning the main problem with the Internet as a repository of information. However, in his analytical attempts, Carr (2008) refrains from making the final step and defining the core of the problem. Specifically, Carr (2008) never states that the internet changes the speed with which people process data, thus, increasing the volume thereof and, consequently, making general audiences prefer quantity over quality. The concept of a change in the pace and velocity of information processing in most people due to the introduction of Google and the related tools into their lives appears to be missing from Carrs essay, thus, making it thought-provoking yet preventing it from reaching the logical conclusion.
Indeed, the argument that Carr (2008) seeks to introduce appears to be meandering. Specifically, while it is understood that Carr strives to prove that the new format of reading encouraged by Google prevents readers from sharpening their critical thinking faculties, the actual mechanics behind the specified process remains mostly under-discussed. Specifically, Carr insists that the emphasis on a new mode of reading minimizes peoples ability to interpret the text to its full extent, instead making people resort to selecting scraps of ideas. Carr (2008) states, When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Nets image. Therefore, Carrs argument implies that the Internet and Google, in particular, limit the field of the readers vision, offering only the opportunities that the search engine and the relevant automated processes defined as worthwhile. The specified assumption could be considered true. Indeed, reports show that search algorithms are easily manipulated and can be shaped in a way that narrows down the process of exploration to a fairly limited range of results that appear on the first pages of the search tab.
However, Carrs (2008) article appears only to scratch the surface of the problem. In addition to the outlined issues, one should also recognize the changes to peoples perception of information that have occurred with the introduction of digital opportunities and the creation of the Web. Specifically, data has gained a self-contained value, becoming an objective in itself and having been turned into a valuable currency (Carr, 2008). The specified change in the understanding of informations role in peoples lives has led to preferring the quantity of obtained band consumed data over quality. As a result, in the online setting, people tend to become oversaturated with data, which leads to the inability to discern minor details and approach information critically with enough incision (Carr, 2008). The described situation clearly represents one of the more adverse effects of digital technology development, google being its pioneer and active promoter.
Furthermore, the fear of artificial intelligence becoming the overpowering force that will drive the cognitive perceptions and processes in its users, which Carr (2008) explores in his essay, sounds farfetched currently. Despite the evident advancement of digital technology, particularly Google and its services, including the development of AI functions, the creation of a HAL-like machine currently does not seem plausible (Carr, 2008). Thus, by referring to popular sci-fi tropes that have been cemented in popular culture, Carr (2008) makes his argument slightly less convincing. Though being articulate and having an understandable premise behind it, the idea of AI being created by Google running amok and controlling its users seems to be slightly panicky. Therefore, the abundance of popular science references diminishes the concept of AI as a potential threat to peoples cognitive processing skills as a viable threat.
Thus, when exploring the capabilities of the Internet, one will have to concede that the fear of it reducing peoples cognitive faculties is slightly exaggerated. Despite being driven by the algorithms that are primarily used as marketing tools and Big Data collection devices, Google and its services should be perceived primarily as an opportunity that can be used in multiple ways. When approaching the use of its services with enough responsibility and a full understanding of the effects that it has on ones perception of data, avoiding the harmful side effects becomes possible. Specifically, studies indicate that Google and its tools can be used as learning options when approached purely as instruments as opposed to considering them as tools for mindless and aimless browsing of information. Specifically, a recent study mentions that We are witnesses of the appearance of a new phenomenon, that is the global virtual educational community, which comprises more than a billion people, and the number is continuing rigorously to increase (Liu, 2019, p. 5). Therefore, unlike other sources of information, Google and the relevant digital tools need to be utilized with a specific objective in mind. Thus, the skills of thorough and profound reading and data consideration will remain among the range of its users skills.
Though Carrs (2008) statement was made quite a while ago, it still offers a platform for a thorough and nuanced discussion since it addresses not only the disadvantages of digital tools, particularly Google, but also the manner in which most people accept it. As a result, instead of sounding panic-mongering or preachy, the article warns about an actual problem and invites the audience to suggest solutions to it. Thus, Carrs (2008) argument concerning the adverse effects that Google-assisted technology has on peoples cognitive skills, particularly their ability to perceive and analyze information, becomes legitimate. While one could argue that the deterioration of certain skills as a result of introducing digital technology is a natural process, Carrs (2008) statement still provides a basis for a robust conversation.
References
Carr, N. (2008). Is Google making us stupid? The Atlantic.
Liu, Z. J., Tretyakova, N., Fedorov, V., & Kharakhordina, M. (2020). Digital literacy and digital didactics as the basis for new learning models development. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(14), 4-18.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.