Questioning Whether Google Is Making Us Stupid

Is Google making our society stupid or is it helping us instead? (Carr, Nicholas, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, The Atlantic). In the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, the main idea, Nicholas Carr is trying to make is that as the internet becomes the main source for information and ideas, it affects our ability to focus on one thing, and he says that humans have a hard time reading and staying focused because of the ineternet. He goes on and attempts to explain how the way information is presented on the Internet and how it has changed our way of thinking and acting as a society. He uses a lot of different methods to do this, he uses anecdotes, persuades the audience using emotions, research, and uses his observations to try to persuade the audience that the internet has been bad for our thinking, and our learning processes. Overall, I believe that his argument is ineffective because of his choice of sources, and also his tone of voice. As you read through the article more Carr talks about how the internet has helped us and he also explains the downside of the internet.

Carr starts his article off with a quote from 2001: A Space Odyssey. He explains the quote by talking about how humans are the ones rewiring the computer, but then he parallels that with how computers have rewired his very own brain (Carr, Nicholas, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Paragraph 1). Before reading this article I didn’t know who

he was, so I researched more about him. Nicholas Carr is an acclaimed writer on technology, economics, and culture whose books have been translated into over twenty-five languages (Psychology Of Technological Institute). He is the Richmond Visiting Professor at Williams College. Carr is also a well-known author, his most recent book, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, is a 2011 Pulitzer Prize nominee and a New York Times bestseller (A writer of books, essays, and ephemera, first paragraph). Throughout his article, it seems like he relies a lot on his fame to convince the readers of his point of view and opinions because he uses a lot of his own opinions and views quite frequently. To be honest, I can see why he does this because he is a well-qualified expert in this subject, but if I didn’t know who he was before reading this, then a good amount of his article would not be effective.

After he says his opinion, he goes on to talk about his friends' experiences with his points of view. After he is talking to his friends about their experience with reading books, he found out that his friends struggle with reading a whole book. This way of thinking probably wouldn’t work with just anybody because anybody can ask their friends this question, but this way of thinking works for Carr because he has authority and I would assume his friends are smart if he’s friends with them. If it wasn't for him or his authority, his argument probably wouldn’t be backed up. Overall he could prove his point well, but he had to use some of his fame to help prove his point.

Nicholas Carr, also realizes that these are just an example of “anecdotes”, which he calls it, he also uses tools for example research from other sources for information. When I continued reading his article I noticed that he quotes a developmental psychologist named, Maryanne Wolf. She goes on to explain that reading isn’t an instinctive skill, so our brains will take in information in a way that we tell it to do. This time Carr talks about how the internet and he goes on to say that the internet is changing our way of reading and taking in information. What he does fail to do is state if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. Another source he uses is when he quotes Friedrich Nietzsche, saying that in 1882 he bought a typewriter and he said after he bought it, it somehow changed that way he wrote (Carr, Nicholas, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Paragraph 10). Even though it comes from a person who has authority, it is in fact an anecdote from 100 plus years ago, and it is also Nietzsche’s opinions and ideas. It’s still a good source Carr uses, but it’s not on the same level as his other examples he used above.

Another thing Carr does in his article is that he uses observations and he has noticed that in magazines and in different articles publishers and writers have added more snippits and summaries of different parts of magazines. As I read more of Carr’s article I noticed that his claim that was made about his observation was that he believed that the reason why these publishers and writers have made little snippets and summaries of articles because he thinks they are conforming to the way our society reads on the internet.

lastly, Carr was able to connect with the audience through emotions. He talks about how Google’s mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” It seeks to develop “the perfect search engine” (Carr, Nicholas, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Paragraph 26). As I read the mission of google I saw why Carr added this to his article because it connected to the readers emotions because it talked about what Google will do for his consumers and that somewhat proves Carr’s argument because he was able to find a source that connects to the audience's emotions.

After reading his whole article I think that his argument that the internet has changed the way our society thinks and has made it hard for us to think deeply when we read books and large pieces of writing because of the internet. Overall, I think a lot of his techniques and tools that he uses when writing his article was aimed towards people that will most likely believe in his ideas and viewpoints. I noticed that he uses his own fame and authority a lot to prove his points, some of his examples and ideas where older examples and it was a bit had as a younger person to fully connect with his argument. Overall I think Nicholas Carr’s article was a bit confusing and challenging to follow, and his arguments could have been a bit better and could have been presented in a better way.