In this post, please review Carr's article http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
Then also read Kirn's piece http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200711/multitasking
Finally review your own daily/weekly multitasking and general technological identity/community usage/frequency that we began to scratch the surface of in class last week: (Remember that you all, for example, spend on average less than an hour a day reading an actual book...versus cell phone, or gaming, or...etc.)
Then, please "triangulate" your readings to compose a 3 page "argument" weighing both sides of the questions Carr and Kirn and we ourselves have raised.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Multitasking has become a defining characteristic of our generation. Teenagers today rarely do just one thing at a time: the iPod is always going, along with the television, and often times this is while eating dinner and studying for the big test the next day. We have become so used to this way of working that it doesn’t even affect us anymore: or so we think. However, this fad of multitasking has contributed to our inability to concentrate on any one thing at a given moment. Especially in college, where distractions are all around us, we may find it difficult to get our brains to focus on the task at hand—the paper we are supposed to be writing that is due tomorrow may get pushed to the back of the brain as people come in and out of the dorm room, carrying on conversations with us as we remember that we have to do laundry, our favorite T.V. show comes on in ten minutes, and we forgot to eat dinner that night. Multitasking always seemed to be a “gift,” at least to me, in high school: it allowed me to get my work done while also socializing with friends and doing things that we enjoyable to me. Only now am I realizing that this may have prevented me from actually comprehending and learning something along the way.
Walter Kirn’s article “The Autumn of the Multitaskers” began with a thought-provoking quote from Pubilius Syrus: “To do two things at once is to do neither.” This really puts a damper on the concept of multitasking, but, nonetheless, is true. Although people may think of our brains as “super-computers,” they unfortunately are not, and we do not have the capability of fully focusing on two, let alone three or four, tasks at once. For example, last year I would often find myself experiencing a sudden bout of “senioritis” which would make me conveniently forget about school until about ten o’clock at night when I would realize I had a huge test the next day. Now I could have just sat down and started studying and been fine, except for the fact that my favorite T.V. show was starting at the same time. Instead of just recording the show and focusing only on my studying, I would try to study and watch the show at the same time. Later on, though, I would realize that not only did I not absorb any of the information in my textbook, but I also had no clue what had happened on the show. Basically, I succeeded only in wasting an hour of my life and accomplished nothing by multitasking. Kirn’s article defines multitasking as: “the attempt by human beings to operate like computers, often done with the assistance of computers.” This quote directly relates to Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” which stated the popular notion that our brains are comparable to super-computers. The arguments made by both Carr and Kirn are very similar—the Internet is affecting the way we think and act. New technology is promoting “skimming and scanning” and in the process, diminishing the importance of deep focus and concentration.
This leads into Maggie Jackson’s article “Distracted” which focuses on attention and how it is the foundation for reading and learning. Attention “implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others,” something that we rarely do anymore. If this is the definition of attention, then I can count on one hand the number of times I have truly focused on a task in the weeks since I have been in college. Each day I find it more and more difficult to pull away from the social aspect of college in order to truly focus on my studies. I have come to the realization that I cannot accomplish anything in my dorm room; in order to get work done, I have to make the long trek to the library. However, I have found that although this can be a pain, it makes me feel happier and more in control of my life. With all the distractions taken away from me, I am able to be productive and efficient. If getting away from my dorm room, which, in a sense, is “my life” is what gives me the feeling that I am in control again, then I think that technology—my iPod, cell phone, television, laptop (especially the Internet)—is what took away that control in the first place. Jackson’s article states that: “People who focus well report feeling less fear, frustration, and sadness day to day, partly because they can literally deploy their attention away from negatives in life.” This statement really describes my experience right now: when I am actually focusing on one specific assignment and not allowing all the other things hanging over my head to interfere with my concentration, that is when I feel the happiest, the most productive, and the most secure. Jackson also brings forth another side to attention, stating that: “Our ability to attend is partly genetic, yet also dependent upon a nurturing environment and how willing we are to reach for the highest levels of this skill, just as a naturally gifted athlete who lacks the opportunity, encouragement, and sheer will to practice can never master a sport.” A person has to want to be able to focus in order to achieve it. Nowadays, most people can’t just expect for this to happen naturally; it has become a skill that requires effort and the will to accomplish it. Who would have ever thought that paying attention would become comparable to playing an instrument or a sport? Nonetheless, this is what has occurred because of multitasking—“we are on the verge of losing our capacity as a society for deep, sustained focus. In short, we are slipping toward a new dark age.” Although this quote comes from Jackson’s article, this exact same statement was the focus of Carr’s work as well; Carr focused on the Internet’s effect on our deep thinking skills. This shows how all three of these articles are interrelated, but the one major theme throughout all three is just one simple word: convenience.
Carr’s article described how the Internet is so appealing because it offers a convenient way for people to obtain information. People can easily go online and scan newspaper headlines instead of spending the time to read an actual newspaper. For most of us, the sheer ease of using a technological tool we feel comfortable with is reason enough to utilize its resources for other things like informing ourselves about world events or doing research for school. The Internet is probably the most used resource for school-aged kids and teens; this is probably not due to its reliability, but to its convenience instead. For example: “Like many of us, students have abandoned print for the Web. As early as 1992, a quarter of library users at the University of North Carolina said they wouldn’t use print resources under any circumstances.” This fact is apparent in high schools and elementary schools as well. I remember that teachers in my high school and grade school would actually have to specifically state that you must use a certain number of book sources for papers and projects; if this was not stated, students would only use the Internet. Parents often supported the usage of the Internet because of its handiness—if their child needed book sources it required them to drive to a library, which many did not have the time for. Today, reading books is generally not as popular as it used to be. The art of “skimming and scanning” has taken its place, and I know that I am guilty of this at times. Again, it all comes down to convenience and time—if only I had more time in the day to correct all the damage that multitasking and technology have teamed up to do to my mind.
Time is of the essence in our society, and anything that saves time, such as multitasking and the use of the Internet, is seen as a helping aid. However, we need to open our eyes and realize that some of this “helpful” technology is actually harming us in the long run by making us lose sight of the important things in life.
As the Internet continues to grow, the Web continues to be a prominent source for information. People utilize the Web for school work, news updates, and even as a means of communication. However, as people become more dependent on new technology, many find that it becomes more of a hindrance to learning than an aid.
In his article, “The Autumn of the Multitaskers”, Walter Kirn discusses the dangers of taking on too many activities at once, especially those involving new technological devices. He recounts his own experience of driving with a cell phone, which led him to a car crash that he didn’t soon forget. This example served to prove that by taking on several actions at once, people are putting themselves at risk.
Kirn does recognize that because technology plays such a large role in society that people are naturally dependent on it. However, he points out that this dependence on technology is a threat to the way that people perceive their freedom. He states, “Human freedom, as classically defined, was not a product that firms like Microsoft could offer, but they recast it as something they could provide. A product for which they could raise the demand by refining its features, upping its speed, restyling its appearance, and linking it up with all the other products that promised freedom, too, but had replaced it with three inferior substitutes that they could market in its name” (3).
The idea that the Internet is controlling much of society is also seen in Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stupid”. Carr discusses how easy multitasking can be because of new technology: “The Internet, an immeasurably powerful computing system, is subsuming most of our other intellectual technologies. It’s becoming our map and our clock, our printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and TV” (60). In Kirn’s article, he recounts attempting to combat this wave of handheld technology by purchasing a simple cell phone. However, he finds great difficulty in doing so, for more recent cell phones are built for the experienced multitasker, not those who thrive on simplicity.
Carr also stresses the idea that people are looking for quick information (which is readily available on the Internet). He claims, “The more pieces of information we can “access” and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers” (62). However, Kirn looks down on the amount of quick information available, considering it a distraction. He divulges into the process of logging onto America Online, and seeing a headline on a gossip news site about Kevin Federline. He then proceeded to follow the link to the story, followed by several other links to several other stories, not one of them his intended destination when he logged onto the computer. He summed up, “Here’s the mental flowchart: Federline dumped > story about his prenuptial with Britney Spears > story was read during eBay auction > time to get some use out of my purchase” (8). So, rather than finishing the work he intended to do online, he proceeded to become increasingly distracted by the information that was so readily available on the Internet.
The subject of distraction is also discussed in an article by Maggie Jackson, “Distracted”. She focuses on the need for attention in society, stating, “Amid the glittering promise of our new technologies and the wondrous potential of our scientific gains, we are nurturing a culture of social diffusion, intellectual fragmentation, sensory detachment. In this new world, something is amiss. And that something is attention” (13).
Just as Carr and Kirn attribute many of society’s failings to recent technology, Jackson finds technology the enemy of focused attention. She claims, “The seduction of alternative virtual universes, the addictive allure of multitasking people and things, our near-religious allegiance to a constant state of motion: these are markers of a land of distraction, in which our old conceptions of space, time, and place have been shattered” (13).
Another key aspect of Carr’s argument in “Google” was the idea that people no longer take the time to thoroughly read or absorb material. He mused, “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski” (57). Jackson agrees that people are failing to delve into readings, yet blames this failing on lack of attention. In her article, she reflected, “We dance on the surface of a thousand texts, skimming over billions of words in books and magazines, myriad flashing ads, and across the mesmerizing Web…it’s an oddity to reread” (161). She claims that because people are fed so much information from so many different sources throughout the day, they find it difficult to concentrate on one thing long enough to truly absorb its essence or meaning.
All three articles focus on the need to dig deeper into readings and focus on individual activities. However, this is difficult in a society where everyone has the world in the palm of their hand. BlackBerrys allow people to communicate as well as organize their life, iPhones carry the luxury of both a cell phone and an iPod, and Sidekicks grant full access to the Internet in your pocket. With the way that society has come to value these technological advancements, it’s no wonder that everyone is itching to get them and make their lives (seemingly) more efficient.
I, too, find myself falling victim to distraction. This morning, I woke up at 9:30 with the intention of writing this paper before noon. I planted myself in the library in an attempt to avoid distraction, yet still managed to respond to 6 text messages, leave three Facebook comments (as well as do a sufficient amount of Facebook surfing), and make one phone call. It’s now 1:43 in the afternoon and I still have about half of a page left to write. As seen by the last four hours of my life, sometimes people can have the best intentions of doing work, yet get sucked right back into the world of cell phones and the Web. Do I blame technology? No. It was my own fault for leaving my phone on vibrate and having Internet Explorer minimized on my laptop.
Still, I can’t help but to take the arguments of Carr, Kirn, and Jackson into account. I can feel myself skimming articles and Web pages rather than divulging into what the authors are really trying to say; I realize that I talk, text message, and watch TV at the same time, and I can look back and see that my attention has been slipping for the past few hours. Maybe some of this is society’s fault; maybe I have just been so influenced by everything going on around me that I’ve failed to remember my work ethic. Or, maybe I subconsciously enjoy the distractions that arise because they allow me to draw my focus away from homework.
No matter what the case for my personal distraction, it is obvious that all three of these authors have hit on some serious issues that are becoming dominant throughout society. While technology appears to be the way of the future, it might only lead us to forget everything that’s happened in the past: the days of reading books and analyzing information for all that it is worth. Sure, things such as reading and truly becoming absorbed in material can still be accomplished. We just have to work a little harder.
Take it all in, usually a relaxing mantra for a sort of spiritual oneness with the environment, but now it seems like that idea may be the most significant gap of technological culture. The new rush of flashy stimuli, many scientists now argue, is completely overwhelming and has several grave implications. Attention, the basis behind all deep, critical thinking is being proportioned over as many as sixteen separate electronic distractions according to some case studies. Three writer/techno-philosophers, Nicolas Carr, Walter Kirn, and Maggie Jackson seem to be in agreement about the potential detriments the e-revolution may bring but they have very different points behind their logic.
In the emotional argument realm, Walter Kirn is master. Driving through a snow storm, he claims to have received a picture of his Coloradoan girlfriend on his mobile phone, and while searching for the familiar exciting ring, Kirn drove off the road and was nearly impaled by a metal fence. It remains to be seen whether Kirn’s real concern should lie with his phone or his libido-charged practices on the phone. Regardless, upon informing his girlfriend of his accident, she was decidedly lacking in empathy and Kirn was thus satisfied with bringing their relationship to a close. Of course he places the majority of the blame on the phone instead of his own poor driving decisions. Another strange argument Kirn made about the disappointment of his phone was that he was never able to take a picture of a terrorist to save the day. Despite his abnormal tech-user qualities, he did voice some legitimate concerns with the new trend. Driving is a complicated set of interactions that takes a lot of focus for unimportant tasks like balance, motor coordination for acceleration, braking, and steering, and compounding visual fields for constantly renewing interpretations. Receiving a picture on a cell phone also requires opening the phone, pressing the memorized sequence of buttons to access the picture and the actual viewing itself which takes eyes from the road, not to mention a carefully worded response in “txt” lingo which has its own complications. While it seems to be only doing two things, driving and texting, it is in reality a series of tens of thousands of complex interactions. The brain simply cannot function under these circumstances and picks one of the two events to focus its attention on, leaving the other in a sort of autopilot. It is no surprise then that Kirn, driving on icy roads in low visibility conditions would end up with a metal pole jutting through his windshield.
Maggie Jackson seems to take a more practical approach addressing her concerns with the technology craze but with an equally absurd sounding context. The idea of the new American “dark ages” pervades her writing, similarly as a consequence of divided attention. She makes the point that always before the other dark ages was there a time of prosperity with new inventions and successful cultures. People then eventually lost sight of their cultural progress and thus failed to foresee their decline into an age with a lack of previously established institutions and innovations. The technologies are being taken for granted as signs of future greatness, but they must be used properly for that to be the case she says. Personal computers and iPods are far reaching tools with strong implications for future developments but they are primarily used for virtual communication and chronic music listening. With these being a person’s sole uses for these pieces of technology, there is no innate advancement in culture. Also due to the internet, people are forgetting how to do things for themselves, and if for some reason the internet fails or declines in functionality, the human reliance on that source of information is so great, that much will be forgotten. Jackson references case studies that show that youth intelligence is dropping as a result of broken attention from constant multiple media sapping. Actual knowledge and critical thinking ability is being impaired in America’s youth because of its dependence on this virtual memory bank and addicting fast-paced access to everything. Children are becoming less skeptical of the information they receive, and in addition to that, much of what children are taught by these new media forms is how better to master media forms. The massive information revolution the internet promised is happening but seems to be incredibly misguided. Jackson argues that this is the reason that twice as many Americans feel drowned in the world now and feel as though they cannot make anything of themselves.
Nicolas Carr agrees with the previous assessments mainly on the point that deep thinking ability is being hindered. However he seems to look at the event as having potential benefits because when the previous information revolutions came, many of what skeptics said were true, but there were vast benefits that the skeptics could not foresee. Carr leaves this possibility open for the future of the Information Age yet still feels personally guilty about his inability to wade through a book. People’s focus is being diffracted in so many different directions that the capacity to ponder about one issue for any length of time is rapidly fading. There are individuals however, who are making light of the progress of technology and succeeding in ways that was never thought possible. Humans are designed for multiple-function processing as seen in complex activities like driving or playing chess which include many different elements that must be synthesized simultaneously to reach one compiled result. Certain people in this digital time can take many different sources of media distractions and synthesize them feeling accomplished at the end. Those who cannot feel this same accomplishment from their work or their synthesis of the new technologies are those who feel like they are being drowned in a world that is moving much faster than they are. There are other hidden causes of this, like the equal praise for all children in grade school. Humans are relative creatures and when everyone else in relation has succeeded in the same manner, the sense of achievement will drastically decrease. Government regulations for schools seem to have made education about knowing facts instead of the analysis and interpretation aspect that are actually important in succeeding. Thus a new breed is rising. The next generation feels minimal amounts of actual achievement and certainly feels no reward from deep thought.
Clearly these writers not only believe technology is distracting and leading to a massive human downfall, they also all fail to provide a solution. Eliminating these technologies is not in the question for any of them, but using them is also out of the question. Perhaps the new goal in education should be to provide legitimate uses for deep intellectual thought using the fast paced technology before the ability is lost. The generation has been raised on technology, but taught in books, and it is this disparity that causes the confusion and lack of focus and sense of accomplishment in the upcoming youth of America. If books are being replaced by the Internet, then the Internet must be taught in the same manner as a book so as not to throw away all potential for intellectual prowess in the new generation.
In their respective texts, Walter Kirn, Nicholas Carr, and Maggie Jackson admit their fears about the impact of new technologies on the humans who cling to them. Though Kirn focuses on multitasking, Carr on the internet, and Jackson on distraction, the works of the three writers are overwhelmingly similar, and vary in only a few regards. A mutual belief that human concentration is declining is apparent in all three pieces, linking them together nicely.
For the most part, Nicholas Carr and Walter Kirn see eye to eye throughout both their works. Nicholas Carr believes that the internet is a threat to contemplation and that the copious amounts of accessible information are a danger to critical thinking in the future. In Walter Kirn’s article, he focuses on multitasking and conveys his belief that the technology that is available causes humans to multitask, ruining their concentration on any one thing. Nicholas Carr begins his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” with his own worry about his inability to concentrate. He says, “I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy” (Is Google Making Us Stupid?). He continues to say that he was once able to read for hours, caught up in the world of prose. Other bloggers, Carr says, “have also begun mentioning the phenomenon” (Is Google Making Us Stupid?). Kirn’s feelings coincide nicely, though he speaks more specifically of multitasking. He says, “At the most basic level, the mental balancing acts that it requires—the constant switching and pivoting…shortchange some of the higher areas related to memory and learning. We concentrate on the act of concentration at the expense of whatever it is that we’re supposed to be concentrating on” (The Autumn of the Multitaskers). Carr agrees that this influx of technology is ruining human concentration. With this technology comes the multitasking to which Kirn is referring. Overall, the ideas of multitasking and concentration are linked together. It is difficult to have one without the other because multitasking results in a lack of concentration. As Kirn says, “the madness of multitasking” has cost humans more than simply the money necessary when mistakes are made.
Nicholas Carr’s beliefs are also comparable to those of Maggie Jackson in his novel, Distracted. These two authors also hold very similar ideas about today’s technological society. In Distracted, Jackson professes his belief that there is an “epidemic erosion of attention” among humans (26). “The way we live,” Jackson says, “is eroding our capacity for deep, sustained, perceptive attention” (13). Obviously, Jackson believes this to be a problem. Like Carr, he puts much of the blame on technology, specifically the internet. As previously explained, Carr believes that the overabundance of information on the web is not only failing to make humans more intelligent, but is actually ruining the ability of people to focus. The internet is replacing reference books, and because articles are concisely written to encourage people to use them, people are finding it increasingly difficult to actually concentrate on something. Jackson also acknowledges the internet’s control over the information humans find and asks, “Can we Google our way to wisdom?” (155). Through the title of Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, it is made apparent that his beliefs coincide with those of Jackson. They both believe that, though Google can provide humans with millions of websites, the simplicity of accessing the information found on these websites is actually retracting from multiple human skills. The straightforwardness of websites is detracting from critical thinking and the ease of finding information is harming human concentration. Furthermore, as Jackson points out, the process itself robs humans of the journey to gaining wisdom.
Additional similarities between the two texts are made obvious through metaphors. When describing his experiences with reading, Carr says, “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski” (Is Google Making Us Stupid?). Similarly, Jackson says, “Now we dance on the surface of a thousand texts, skimming over billions of words in books, magazines, myriad flashing ads, and across the mesmerizing web” (161). In both metaphors, the authors are explaining that humans no longer explore prose with the depth of years past. Now, as Jackson says, “We read to glean and to get the neatly packaged answer” (171). Also, like Carr’s claim mentioned previously about his difficulty concentrating, Jackson raises this claim in question form when he asks, “Is it just me, or is it true that we don’t seem to go deeply into anything anymore?” (18). Carr’s entire article answers this question, like when he says, “As people’s minds become attuned to the crazy quilt of Internet media, traditional media have to adapt to the audience’s new expectations” (Is Google Making Us Stupid). It is clearly evident that the two writers agree quite uniformly about the effects of the internet and new technology.
The final necessary comparison is between the writers Maggie Jackson and Walter Kirn. Their ideas about distraction and multitasking respectively are also directly related to one another. Because there are so many sites available online, television channels to watch, and bands to listen to, and because the number of hours in a day has yet to increase, humans find themselves doing multiple things at once. This results in the extension of only a portion of concentration to each activity. Because concentration is so often divided, humans become increasingly distracted. In Kirn’s article, he supports this theory with a personal account. In his memory, Kirn was, multitasking, as always. He was juggling electronics gadgets and other objects while reading headlines about Kevin Federline online, when he, “only then became aware of the fluorescent Post-it note stuck in the corner of [his] lap top screen. “Grab discount SF fare,” the note read. Where had it gone? Where had I gone, rather? How could a piece of paper in a color specifically formulated to signal the brain Important! Don’t Ignore! be upstaged by a picture of a sad minor celebrity?” (The Autumn of the Multitaskers). Here, Kirn is supporting his claim as well as the claim made by Jackson. Because he was multitasking, he became distracted and forgot to research something very important. A statement of Jackson supports Kirn’s example perfectly when he says, “I am attending to everything at once and as a result I do not really attend to anything” (23). When little pieces of attention are given to many tasks, it is as if no attention is given at all.
The pair also agrees on the impact that multitasking and distraction have on the world’s youth. In Kirn’s article, he quotes a teen who says, “I get bored if it’s not all going at once” (The Autumn of the Multitaskers). He then follows the young girl’s comment with his own when he says that, “They’re the ones whose still-maturing brains are being shaped to process information rather than understand or even remember it” (The Autumn of the Multitaskers). Jackson very obviously agrees with Kirn’s concerns because his own piece contains actual statistics proving Kirn’s conjecture to be correct. He says, “Nearly 60 percent of fifteen-year-olds in our country score at or below the most basic level or problem solving, which involves using single sources of well-defined information to solve challenges” (18). Both authors are not only in agreement about the connection between multitasking and distraction, but also find these two phenomena to be a threat to the developing minds of children and teens.
Between the three writers, there is only one true disagreement. This difference of opinion originates in Carr’s belief that the large amounts of information available are causing humans to read more and more. He says that “The more pieces of information we can “access” and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers” (Is Google Making Us Stupid?). This means that, though Carr is concerned about the easily accessible information that is now becoming available, he believes that the technology phenomenon still yields some benefits. Conversely, Kirn and Jackson have mostly negative views about this plethora of information. Kirn’s focus on multitasking claims that multitasking grows from all of the information available. Therefore, he doesn’t have many positive comments to support Carr’s statement. Jackson’s argument about distraction is also rooted in all of the information that is available. If there was less to do on a daily basis, people would not be so distracted. However, this is the only major contrast between all of the writers.
If there is still doubt about the ideas of these three writers of such obvious talent, I am certain that my own personal testimony, and the testimony of my classmates, could convince the remaining nonbelievers. Born into a generation of quickly developing technology, I spent much time as a child watching television programs and I spent the latter years of my childhood around computers. Now, I am relatively adept at performing computer related tasks. I still watch television and listen to music on my MP3 player. I am in complete agreement with Carr that the millions of websites and databases online are overwhelming. In fact, whenever I research a topic, I find myself skimming articles and clicking through pages for the sole reason that I am inundated by all of the links that appear when I search on Google. I can also relate to Kirn’s struggle with multitasking. Often, I will write an essay while chatting with a friend on Facebook. However, Jackson’s distraction then kicks in and I begin to ignore the essay and focus only on the friend I am chatting with. The most disturbing part of my testimony, I believe, is that I am on the low side of the scale. What I mean is that I am one of those exceptions to the rule. I rarely send text messages, I am unable to concentrate if the television is on while I am doing homework. I listen to my MP3 player only when I exercise, and I haven’t played video games for years. The disturbing aspect to which I previously referred is that, despite all of these conditions that set me apart from others, I still experience inundation, multitasking, and distraction! I cannot imagine how teens who use today’s technologies more often than I do are able to manage their lives.
To conclude, Walter Kirn, Nicholas Carr, and Maggie Jackson have very similar views about the technology consuming the world. Furthermore, their independent ideas about multitasking, an abundance of information, and distraction are undeniably connected to one another, and can be supported by the testimonies of countless teens. The abundance of information open to all humans results in the necessity to multitask. The resultant division of attention causes the mind to wander and become distracted. Because these three esteemed writers have reached such a universal consensus, it seems logical to assume that their ideas are not only applicable to life, but are also prevalent in society.
I sit here writing this paper with my cell phone by my side, my buddy list on my desktop and surrounded by books that are probably hardly opened. I’m in the library, or what we refer to as the library, but it seems more like a haven for seekers of a quiet work environment rather than seekers of a good book. Some college students hardly ever set foot in the library, while some make it their work space, desperate to avoid the distractions of the dorms and get some work done. I’m fully aware that I’ve brought a good number of distractions with me, as my cell phone is on, my internet is connected and my friend relays every detail of her day in an online conversation. I did complete what I came here to do, but I’m positive this list of distractions increased my work time. As studies have shown, multitasking in no way increases productivity, but it has become something that our generation can’t seem to function without. We seem to set ourselves up for disruptions and unproductive work, unable to focus on a single task. Authors Nicholas Carr, Maggie Jackson, and Walter Kirn battle the thinking and working styles of our generation in their writings, questioning the depths of the efficiency and productivity we believe we possess, and offering facts and figures on the true effects of our multitasking.
Carr first questions the effects on the way we think in his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”. Carr, a writer who notes that his research time has been significantly cut with the convenience of the Internet, also notes that his abilities to concentrate and contemplate have been altered. While pointing out the “advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information” (57), Carr also points out that readers online are now simply browsing and skimming, not interpreting and engaging in the text. With resources and search engines like Google, Internet users have come to value efficiency and immediacy, and not the deep reading that was valued before the days of the Internet. Google itself is in hopes of using technology in ways it’s never been used before, and challenging the reach of artificial intelligence. Carr summarizes that the Internet has changed the way its users read and the way that they think.
Maggie Jackson also makes reference to the major search engine, Google, in her book, Distracted. Jackson notes, “We can tap into 50 million Web sites, 1.8 million books in print, 75 million blogs, and other snowstorms of information, but we increasingly seek knowledge in Google searches and Yahoo! headlines that we gulp on the run while juggling other tasks” (13). She implies with this that Internet users have become lazy and that all of the recent advances in technology are making people lose their attention spans for other things. Much like Carr, Jackson claims “the way we live is eroding our capacity for deep, sustained, perceptive attention” (13), so that in reality, we seem to be losing as much as we’re gaining. Jackson stresses this pairing of innovation in technology with declination in civilization, saying that if people continue losing their capacity to focus, we will be led back into a dark age. This contrasts with the sort of artificially intelligent super search engine Carr references in his article, where technology moves us forwards instead of sending us back. Our inability to focus could be due to the number of activities we are challenging our minds to handle at once. We are not productive when we multitask and we don’t really go deeply into anything anymore. Kids may have become “technologically fluent”, but they “can’t synthesize or assess information, express complex thoughts, or analyze arguments” (18). PowerPoint is a tool that is enabling this to happen for children, as they are simply cutting and pasting information from websites without really understanding the content. PowerPoint, “the world’s most popular presentation tool” (20), may be seen as good for its brevity, but can also be uninformative and misleading for its bulleted styling. Jackson stresses that we must remember that new technology isn’t always good, and “it’s crucial that we better understand how our new high-tech tools, from video games to PowerPoint, may be affecting us” (21). It seems that tools like these reflect the values of our time, which raises the question, is technology our definition of progress? Google and Wikipedia seem to go hand in hand with our lack of attention and loss of critical thinking skills. With “togetherness” now seeming to be defined as being in close proximity to our cell phones and laptops, we seem to have become too distracted to even notice the effects of our reliance on technology.
As can be inferred from the title, Walter Kirn’s article, “The Autumn of Multitaskers”, focuses on the multitasking habits of the general public. Kirn himself explains a situation where he was so distracted by his cell phone that he almost got into a serious car accident. He matches Jackson in his opinion that not all new technology is good, as the special features of his cell phone were what caused his distraction. But Kirn is not alone in this multitasking; “2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries may be caused by drivers on cell phones each year” (2). It’s when we look at the facts and figures like this that we realize the true effects of our multitasking. When the financial cost of multitasking is estimated to be a whopping six hundred and fifty billion dollars, we must realize that we are not doing something right here. Studies have shown that, roughly speaking, “multitasking messes with the brain”, and actually “boosts the level of stress related hormones” (1). We become confused and fatigued and hinder our ability to analyze and focus. Multitasking really slows our thinking so that we are not as productive as we might be if we were only challenging ourselves to focus on one task. Publilius Syrus, a Roman slave, may have put it best when he said, “To do two things at once is to do neither.” To be browsing Facebook, listening to an iPod, and trying to complete a homework assignment, teenagers are only hampering their own productivity.
All three writers seem to share the opinion that technology of our time is shaping the way we think, read, and complete work. We are not analytical thinkers, deep readers, or productive workers, and this could be blamed on the Internet, the websites it offers, and the communication gadgets we keep glued to our sides. We have become multitaskers, challenging ourselves to complete and concentrate on multiple activities, which we usually do unsuccessfully. I personally find it difficult to think of times when I’m doing homework that I am not in some way connected to my phone or my computer, or simply just talking to other people. I may feel like I’m accomplishing my work and at the same time remaining social, but really, what am I accomplishing? Jackson presents her own thought-provoking question that can be translated to the other articles; has technology come to be our definition of progress today?
The Greater Flaw
Humans are a flawed species, one who’s physical and characteristic flaws are numerous and vary between its members. Three articles that explore the idea of the downfalls of multitasking and technology are Distracted by Maggie Jackson, The Autumn of the Multitaskers by Walter Kirn, and Is Google Making Us Stupid? by Nicholas Carr. Distracted sets the stage for the exploration, Multitaskers dives deeper into the issues presented in Distracted, and Google takes the ideas discussed and applies them to a relevant issue in today’s society, the issue of the lack of in depth reading and analysis due to the worldwide web. This issue does seem relevant considering the amount of time spent reading actual printing text has declined dramatically as the use of online sources has become more and more prevalent. What is also becoming more prevalent is the “art” of multitasking.
What exactly is the harm of multitasking? Most people would say that multitasking enables them to get more done in a shorter amount of time. On the contrary, Kirn writes, “In reality, multitasking slows our thinking. It forces us to chop competing tasks into pieces, set them in different piles, then hunt for the pile we’re interested in, pick up the pieces, review the rules for putting the pieces back together, and then attempt to do so, often quite awkwardly”. Kirn even recounts his own near-death experience due to multitasking as when he was reaching for his cell phone to see a picture message he had just been sent while driving and careened off an embankment, nearly running into a barbed wire fence. Not only is multitasking dangerous in this way, but it is scientifically proven to increase the level of stress-hormones in our brains and thus leads to premature aging (Kirn). Perhaps this is why stress is so prevalent throughout members of our society; everyone is trying to do everything at once. Besides the physical and mental repercussions, it is argued that our emotional well being is also being threatened. Kirn recounts after his near-death car crash, his girlfriend had little to none of an emotional response to his terrifying experience. “I never forgave her for that detachment” (Kirn) Jackson also comments on this phenomenon of emotional detachment by writing, “Consumed by the vast time and energy simply required to survive the ever-increasing complexity of our systems of living, are we missing the slow extinction of our capacity to think and fell and bond deeply?” This idea was demonstrated by an experience in a classroom discussion in which one student reported that his face-to-face contact with loved ones were no different than those he had with them virtually (i.e. over the telephone or on the internet). Being a person who highly treasures the sensual experiences such as a deep embrace, a familiar smell, and the taste of a kiss on the cheek that can only occur from face-to-face contact, this viewpoint is one that is highly disturbing and dispiriting. Maybe Carr was asking the wrong question, maybe he should ask “is Google making us robots?”.
If multitasking can be such a destructive practice, why do humans continue to lose attention and become unfocused and is technology all to blame for this human weakness? In Jackson’s Distracted, there is a rather lengthy explanation of the difficulty the human brain has in focusing on a single task. One task that is especially difficult for the human mind is learning to read; visually looking at symbols written on a page and deciphering them to get some meaning out of it. Jackson writes, “…because learning to read requires a miraculous feat of brain circuitry, fueled by a crucial and equally invisible ingredient: attention. ‘In asking kids to read, we’re asking, ‘could you please rewire your brain?’’ says neuroscientist Bruce McCandliss”. Alluded to here is that just gaining the skills and amount of focus necessary to read is a great accomplishment in itself for the human brain on a physiological level beyond our own control. Although a significant amount of humans do eventually gain the skills required to be literate, many still have difficulty reading deeply. Even as early as the 1898 when there was no internet to blame, reading was done in a quick manner, skimming the surface and not truly processing what it was that was being read (Jackson). This same sort of reading is discussed in Carr’s Google where he comments on the web causing us to “skim the surface” of text and thus lack any true comprehension. Thinking back to being a child, before the internet revolution, concentrating on written text had its times where focusing was a major struggle. Not even just reading, but almost any activity in general was one that was explored and then quickly passed by. While observing children, one would notice that they become rather obsessed with one activity such as peek-a-boo, shallowly play the game over and over again, and then grow bored and move on to the next infatuation. The lack of ability to concentration itself seems to be a basic human blemish.
“ ‘Go somewhere now,’ it (Microsoft/the internet) strongly recommended, ‘then go somewhere else tomorrow, but always go, go, go-and with our help’ ” (Kirn). The internet is a machine that knows the human deficiency to focus properly without difficulty and plays on it. The web challenges us to explore its seemingly bottomless pit of information and entertainment, constantly going from link to link to link. As we learn to navigate through the abyss that is the worldwide web, our ability to concentrate on any single task decreases. It is not only the internet that is causing this change either. All forms of technology such as the cell phone, I-Pod, television, video games, etc. play a part in providing distractions in our daily lives. This myriad of distractions drives many the college student to the university library in search of a space where they are almost completely distraction free. Both the times that we fall into their persuasive grasp and also the times when we are able to fight off their temptations categorize a new way of life; a life spent being distracted by technology and trying to escape that same distraction. In this way, technology has not created our inability to focus, but has amplified that weakness.
One can conclude that multitasking can prove to be a destructive component of human life. It can also be concluded that although an innate human deficiency, technology has amplified our issues with concentrating and focusing. However, all three writers can admit that when used properly, technology has the potential to help make us more intelligent individuals. Carr comments that people are actually “ reading” more today than in past decades, just reading differently. It is not “what” someone reads, may it be a five hundred page novel or an article on the internet, but “how” we read, whether it be intelligently and deeply or shallowly lacking much thought (Carr). Jackson continues this thought by writing, “If crafted well and used wisely, our high-tech tools have the potential to make us smarter…”. It is even possible for the highly trained mind to learn to multitask effectively and truly save time in doing so (Jackson). Although multitasking can prove to create chaos, for some it creates focus and rhythm to their work. Although some use technology to converse with strangers, some use it to keep in touch with loved ones who are too far away for a hug. Some use the internet to read trashy celebrity news, some use it to read scholarly articles about new scientific research. Some use websites to watch pornography, some use them to communicate with the love of their life who is too far away to hold hands with. Certainly, just as multitasking is a natural human flaw that can cause physical and emotional detachment, the technology in its grasp can also be used as a controlled medium by which we can focus and connect. It is up to the individual to overcome this defect and use the resulting technology their own good. No one is perfect after all, right?
People love the internet for its convenience, its speed, and its availability. The amount of information that can be found on the internet is immense. Not only can you find billions of pieces of information, you can do many things at once. It is possible to write a paper while watching your favorite television show. You can research topics while you chat with friends thousands of miles away. It saves time to do so many other things in the “real”, not cyber, world.
But how safe is this virtual multi-tasking? And how much time does it actually save? The truth is that virtual multi-tasking is a huge reason why Google has become so popular to this generation. It makes it so much easier when you are trying to get your work done but you really want to talk to your friends too. The cost comes at a huge price, and people today are having trouble truly understanding what all this online and multi tasking is doing to their brains and to their lives in general. The technology today is distracting, and not only is it changing how your brain functions, the distractions can kill you. In this age of multi-taskers, people do not have time to sit and really read anything, especially if it is not on the web. People are able to read two articles at the same time, without having to sit and read through one, put that one down, and pick the second one up again. However, because our brain is trying to take in so much information at such a fast pace, it is unable to take in all the information that is held in the articles. We are not thinking critically anymore, we are unable to make deeper connections with the subjects that we read about, all for the sake of saving time. People think it is better to save time and understand things half as well then to spend a little extra time and fully grasp the understanding of the information.
According to Walter Kirn in his article “The Autumn of the Multitaskers”, he explains that people were manipulated in thinking that if they did not use the internet they were not “living” and they were essentially “wasting their freedom”, so people began using the internet for everything. Who were they to waste the freedom that was given to them? This was what began the obsession with multi-tasking using the web, and Google.
The web is now being connected in how our brains are changing. It is possible to reverse the effect. The web does not need to be made the enemy. For example, people today “skim” article online, allowing for maximum information to be read but minimum time to be wasted. This is not working, however, because the information is not being fully absorbed or understood. If people took the time to read and understand what was being said in what they were reading, the web could be used for so many things. People need to thinking of the internet differently. It is not the source of everything, although some people today may argue that. People should use the information on the web, just not at the speed they are using it. People should fully immerse themselves into the information of what they are reading and take the time to truly understand it. Skimming may save time, but it does not allow for a full understanding of the information being read. Multi-tasking on the web or anywhere should be cut down for safety reasons. The power of the web should be used, not abused like it is being. This would allow for maximum information input into the brain.
Our generation loves multi-tasking. It is made so easy by the web and by the increasing technology of cell phones. As we have talked about in class, most people spend hours a day using popular technology, and a lot of the time the usage of these technologies will overlap. For example, a very good friend of mine owns an “iPhone”. These phones can do pretty much anything ever imagined a phone can do. It has the internet, a camera, a GPS system of some kind, and a bunch of other things that I can’t even remember. He often watches television while texting and looking online at his facebook. A phone should not be able to do all these things. It is just a distraction to have all of these extra gadgets on the phone. When we do all these things at once, our brain is being trained at a very early age to take in this information at this fast speed. This is can be detrimental to our critical thinking process that we will need while in college and during our careers.
Our generation is more in tune to the new technologies than the previous generation. We admit to being on the phone, listening to our iPod, or talking to our friends on the computer for an average of 3 hours a day. What does this say about the next generation? What technologies will be they have to be obsessed with? If we think that our generation is hurting their brain function because of technology, we should probably be worried about the next generation. It seems like every day there is some new gadget that people fall in love with, whether it is a new kind of phone or a video game like guitar hero. If every generation is more in-tune to the new technology than the previous generation, it is safe to assume that the next group of teenagers will be stuck inside, barely every communicating with people in person, only doing it through whatever is the popular form of technology of the day.
However, as was stated in the “Google” essay, we can always reverse what we are doing to our brain. If we as a population began to really read again, our brains could slowly adapt and become more used to getting completely absorbed in the text and comprehending the deeper messages that are inside. We need to view the web as a great resource, but we cannot afford to take it as seriously as we have. We need to teach each younger generation the importance of reading and books. We need to teach them to use these technologies in moderation so they do not become dependent of them anymore than this generation has.
All the different information that is made available to us has been a trap since the beginning. As children in middle school, this generation became used to using the computer for typing up homework. As it realized what the web could do for them, they began to use it to find information to write their papers with. They also found out they didn’t have to read the book that was assigned for them because sites like Spark notes gave them outlines of the texts so they still knew the main ideas of the stories. They also stopped calling people as much, because it was easier to IM them. Essentially, the easy access to such information and technology is making people lazy. It is detrimental to younger generations who are relying on the internet to be sharing correct information. These children will grow up thinking that the internet is the most reliable source when in reality it is just the easiest. These children will be more likely to grow up with little knowledge of the information held at a library because they will most likely do most of their research online. They will communicate with others not by face-to-face conversation, but using some kind of technology because that is much easier. The next generation will only know the easy way out, but this is hurting their brain, and soon everyone else will be too lazy to show them how to do things without using any form of technology.
The world has become a fast paced place. People are getting more and more caught up in careers and their salaries. People are more knowledgeable of what is going on across the world because of the technology of news broadcast than of what is going on next door. People are abusing the power given to them by the web and using it for everything that they can possibly use it for. People need to stop putting their faith into the web. As a part of culture, people put the internet on a pedestal like it is the greatest thing ever invented. We need to realize that one thing that will always be greater than the internet is our own brain and give it some real work every once in a while.
With the constant development of technologies, society is increasingly moving at a very fast pace. Everyone is rushing and people feel as though they have little time to get a lot accomplished. This brings about the need to complete multiple things at one time: multitasking, a common routine of many people, particularly teenagers. Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Walter Kirn’s “The Autumn of Multitaskers,” and Maggie Jackson’s “Distracted” are all related in that they discuss this growing tendency. Each work provides evidence of the effects of multitasking on humans and that, in fact, taking on several things at once can do more harm than good.
One of the first points Carr makes in his article is that despite the less frequent use of books, people are actually reading more. This reading is simply not in the normal sense of turning pages; people are clicking through links to get information thus changing the style. Both Kirn and Jackson also provide arguments that multitasking is a result of changes in the styles of thinking. Kirn defines the future of multitasking as “Autonomy through automation.” This parallels Carr’s fear of society’s goal to “systematize everything. “ People feel as though they are in control when using multiple technologies though, in fact, it only diffuses their attention until they become ineffective in the respective tasks. Jackson brings up the increase of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), noting that in American society it is deemed acceptable and almost commonplace for someone to be on a medication to help them focus. This is not to put down those who do need support when concentrating but it is critiquing a society willing to settle when they could excel. Attention is declining as everyone looks for instant gratification provided by the Internet and other technologies. Everything is abbreviated. Jackson also refers to Power Point. Children and adolescents favor this method of presentation because the bullets are concise and graphics are entertaining. Students are less willing to delve deep into text as they are experts at finding websites for research, however, incompetent when they must sort out important facts.
Kirn justifies multitasking as people having the desire to get more things accomplished at once and Jackson provides the fact that about one third of fourteen to twenty-one year olds are using five to eight media while doing homework. That being said, listening to an iPod is not a task and neither is checking a Facebook status or watching videos on Youtube. Jackson is correct in calling these distractions, rather than multiple tasks. These distractions cause people to reflect less on something they have just read or heard, therefore weakening the critical thinking process. Distractions divide attention up among all the different things going on at a given time until not enough attention is given to any of them. Kirn is a proponent of this idea, and speaks from a personal experience, when he crashed his car while trying to view a picture message on his phone. He notes that while multitasking stimulates parts of the brain for visual and physical coordination and processing, higher areas of memory and learning are neglected. Carr argues that people must remain critical thinkers by reading, undistracted, in order to assess the information afterward. If humans are constantly attempting to multitask, they will never be sharpening their minds by committing to and following through with challenging tasks
The three authors fear that multitasking, distractions, the need for instant gratification and the increasing dependence on technology will lead to a downfall of humanity. Carr predicts that there may be a complete shift from humans to machines with the invention of artificial intelligence and that independent thinking may become obsolete People will no longer have any need to analyze readings, draw their own conclusions or pose questions. Jackson provides evidence that the technological revolution happening currently parallels other times of prosperity which led to dark ages. She believes society could be entering another dark age, where people will trade the permanence of civilization for the convenience and freedom of web technology. Kirn references his car accident, a result of a cell phone distraction, and the complete lack of sympathy from his girlfriend upon telling her. Ironically enough, she was the source of the dangerous picture message but she failed to show any concern for Kirn when he was upset. From this he draws that constant distractions desensitizing people, weakening personal relations. Though people may ignore theories like these, the argument that these tendencies could become the norm is very plausible and dangerous.
In general I like to believe that I do not fit the stereotype of a technologically obsessed teenage girl, though I do often utilize mobile devices and the Internet. I cannot watch television while I do homework because I know I will never get anything done. When I am doing homework or writing a paper I may listen to music very softly, but more often not at all. I keep my cell phone with me at all times so if that personal device ever vibrated I would pause to check a text message or respond to one. If work is becoming tedious I will interject and check my e-mail or my Facebook. In general, if I know I have work, I will sit down and do it. I may even venture to the library if I am feeling overzealous. Though I am guilty of succumbing to temptation of using technology while I work, I understand when I am being distracted. The difference is that I am not oblivious to the fact that I am preoccupied at a given time. I will consciously distract myself if I am in need of a break from work but I do not mindlessly try to juggle everything at once. I will create a diversion for perhaps five or so minutes and then resume diligence. I will not fool myself into thinking that I am being productive when I know a task is at hand.
All three works by Carr, Kirn and Jackson reference the changes in thinking styles of humans and the negative cycle: people become dependent on instant gratification and the convenience of Internet and technology, thus trying to constantly utilize these technologies and multitask, ultimately resulting in distraction and loss of focus. It is true that technology has facilitated the flow of information all around the world and is a very useful tool for research. However, people need to use discretion when sorting through web pages and analyzing things they read online, as well as become more aware of when the time is appropriate to use social networks, cell phones, iPods and Instant Messenger. The chances of an impending downfall of humanity due to distractions and decreased attention span will be greatly reduced if people use these technologies in moderation, rather than simultaneously while working. These devices are incredibly beneficial as long as those using them learn to use their own minds to critically think and not simply rely on computers to do the work for them.
It’s not much of a contrast or a comparison, but, Kirn is right in all he says. Multitasking is impossible; his anecdotes hold much more water than scientific studies could ever dream of. While reading his essay, I realized that I am a pathetic person when it comes to be seduced by technology and the idea of multitasking. Thursday night I took an hour to write a single paragraph for my Anthropology class because I was talking online with a best friend who is off at school, watching my hall mates play video games on my TV and listening to music. At this very moment, I just received a text message, and I know when I reach into my pocket to read it, my concentration will be shot for at least 8 minutes. The idea of concentration being shot is a little nod to Carr’s article, but I’ll get to him later. Text messages are pretty much the only thing that can get to me right now, as I am deep in the Quinnipiac Law Library, the quietest place on campus. I have also exited Itunes, logged off of Facebook and AIM, and killed my roommates (two truths and a lie; I’m still on Facebook). I did all of this so I can focus on one task at hand, reading an article about the dangers of multitasking. Kirn compares multitasking to the task of “running up and down a beach repairing a row of sand castles as the tide comes rolling in and the rain comes pouring down”; there’s nothing like a good sand castle metaphor. Truly that is what it feels like sometimes; to spend an entire night busy but to have nothing to show for it.
While Carr’s article absolutely has some validity to it, I think it is more applicable to older generations than to mine, therefore I don’t relate to it as much as someone else might. Ever since I have learned to read, I have always skimmed the text naturally. I used to amaze my peers by how many books I read, but for the life of me, I don’t think I could quote a single book. Generations before that read word by word, I’m sure they do feel as if technology has ruined their concentration and retention of the material. I was born and raised broken as far as reading, should I try to change now? I guess it couldn’t hurt, because according to James Olds, “The brain has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.” If this is indeed the case, shouldn’t it take less work for a generation of people to go back to their old ways than for me to begin reading like I never have before? While Carr may have a point, he didn’t at all talk about what those people who have been raised by Google should do, or if there is even hope for them.
I’d imagine Carr and Kirn know each other, maybe they are even friends. They contribute articles for the same magazine, and they both have some distinct similarities to their essays. They both have a sense of underlying fear over what our current dependence on technology is doing to us as a people. Carr believes it is affecting the way we read and comprehend, while Kirn fears we are losing the ability to retain deep memories associated with learning. Kirn presents a very scary, possibly true picture where, “In the short term, the confusion, fatigue, and chaos (of multitasking) merely hamper our ability to focus and analyze, but in the long term, they may cause it to atrophy. “ While Carr doesn’t present the same sort of doom and gloom claim as Kirn, but he does offer that the internet ”…may be weakening our capacity for the kind of deep reading…” Both authors fear very deeply that the internet is changing the way we think, and maybe not for the better.
None of the essays are such harbingers of doom quite like Distraction. In Distraction, Jackson predicts that the “epidemic erosion of attention is a sure sign of an impending dark age”; I believe it too. I read the essay over the course of multiple hours, doing multiple things. I began to read it while on the phone with my girlfriend, then later on a friend’s bed with multiple people in the room, then whilst sitting upon a washer waiting for my clothes to be clean. What did I actually get accomplished? While I felt like I had worked for multiple hours, was this in a way, a “shimmering mirage” of progress as Jackson would believe? I think so, because I could have easily accomplished the necessary reading had my attention been solely devoted to the task at hand. Where Carr and Kirn theorize about the changes technology is bringing forth and what they could mean, Jackson boldly claims that this is how it all comes crashing down.
To tie it all together, I think all of the essays presented (Is Google Making us Stupid, The Autumn of Multitaskers, and Distraction) have one key idea that links them all. The idea that something is changing in society, and even in our own minds, and technology is behind it. They don’t fully unite on the idea of whether this is a good or bad change, instead offering that time will tell what impact it has. In “Is Google Making us Stupid?” Carr believes that technology, mainly the internet is ruining our concentration and retention when it comes to reading. Distraction offers a similar opinion, except not just applied to reading, but that technology is slowly ruining our concentration on everything in our lives. Finally, Kirn theorizes that multitasking is actually ruining our ability to focus on anything fully and putting undue stress on our brains as we change to adapt. If three intellectuals all write thesis’ on technology ruining our concentrations, is there some truth to it? Most likely, seeing as I can never focus on a damn thing. It’s a good thing we have an entire English class devoted to exploring this subject matter.
As you try and sit down to focus on a book for the first time all week, your phone goes off, signaling an incoming call. After answering a question that could have easily been answered the next morning, you decide that you should check your e-mail; your inbox notifies you that someone wrote on your Facebook wall and you have a new comment on your latest blog. The time quickly passes with an online AIM conversation, a constant update of your Facebook status proclaiming to the world that you are busy reading (or at least that was your original intent), and responding to various e-mails from friends that you could easily call or visit since they live in the same town as you; the clock reveals that hours have gone by in this manner. The hours that were originally devoted to deep thought were quickly replaced with the chaos of the technological world; you barely made progress in this new work of literature. Despite the justification that you were, in fact, reading online blogs, Facebook updates, and e-mails, the level of this thought only sits upon the surface. Easily, you fulfill the stereotype of the YouTube generation, consumed with the multitasking and mindless thought of the cyber world. In their respective essays, Walter Kirn, Maggie Jackson, and Nicholas Carr refer to the distractions and deterioration that occurs from the constant flow of cyber-thought. Today’s young generation is the last to experience childhood free thought as society transforms to a high-tech community. People fail to realize the impact that this multitasking and distracting world has upon the minds of the youth and future.
Caught up in modern technology, it is difficult to look perceptively at the surrounding world with an objective eye and critical mind. In Kirn’s article, he relates the connectivity of the individual to society and its impact upon identity in the “juggling of electronic lives and the array of subtly different personas that each one encourages (we’re terse when texting, freewheeling on the phone, and in some middle state while e-mailing)” (Kirn 3). People have developed the ability to ‘act’ differently between all of the different identities, which they exhibit through their multiple personalities and portrayal of components that are necessary to produce this ‘effective’ multitasking ability. Carr makes a similar statement regarding this change in thought, which initiates “a new sense of self” (Carr 58). Multitasking has become characteristic of the current generation, and the effort imposed into these multiple paths renders the critical mind’s focused and more efficient response ineffective for the personal identity. People are so insistent upon completing the optimum amount of processes in the least amount of time that they actually discredit their work in the process. “In reality, multitasking slows our thinking. It forces us to chop competing tasks into pieces, set them in different piles, then hunt for the pile we’re interested in, pick up its pieces, review the rules for putting the pieces back together, and then attempt to do so, often quite awkwardly” (Kirn 2). As ‘skilled’ as society likes to believe it is at multitasking, this behavior is proving detrimental to progress.
Likewise, this belief of self-sufficiency through multitasking produces a dependency upon the capabilities of technology. Carr distinguishes that the capabilities of the Web “suggests a belief that intelligence is the output of a mechanical process, a series of discrete steps that can be isolated, measured, and optimized” (Carr 62-63), as is evident in the technological processing of search engines like Google and Yahoo!. People have become so dependent upon the answers fed to them through the World Wide Web that they stop relying upon their own minds and analytical skills. Jackson also recognizes this inability to produce critical processing with the constant distractions “as we plunge into a new world of infinitely connectible and accessible information, we risk losing our means and ability to go beneath the surface, to think deeply” (Jackson 155). All of the authors note the loss of free contemplation among the most detrimental effects of the new age cyber-universe.
This evidence is becoming clearly visible in the younger generations. The age of outdoor exploration and inquisition has been replaced by the utility and convenience of a keyboard and CPU. Unfortunately, it seems as though my generation is the final transition from ‘reality’ to ‘sub-reality’ within the cyber-world. People are closing themselves off from others, thinking that multitasking requires online community access and does not require personal experience or interaction. Society allows text to be removed from books and transposed into something “fraught with meaning and deeply embedded in our psyches,” as it becomes “the transparent carryall of burgeoning info-bits” (Jackson 161). The idea that our generation is capable of maintaining a stable and productive society within the chaos of distraction is nearly laughable. As Kirn addresses in his article, multitasking in fact “isn’t working, it never has worked, and though we’re still pushing and driving to make it work and puzzled as to why we haven’t stopped yet… the stoppage or slowdown is coming nonetheless” (Kirn 2). If society continues at the current rate, eventually we will either fail to be productive or become cyborgs with no free thought process whatsoever.
Ultimately, society is attempting to thrive in a world of complete and utter distraction. “The way we live is eroding our capacity for deep, sustained, perceptive attention…attention defines us and is the bedrock of society” (Jackson 13); without this capacity for focus, it seems as if society will tear apart at the seams. Multitasking is bringing civilization to a point where “we are less and less able to see, hear, and comprehend what’s relevant and permanent… so many of us feel that we can barely keep our heads above water, and our days are marked by perpetual loose ends” (Jackson 14). The constant spinning and alterations of the technological world are destroying free thought and childhood creativity. People are more focused upon efficiency than upon the benefits of an artistic culture or a well-rounded mind. The future of civilization is suffering from this idea that multitasking is interchangeable with productivity. Jackson states the inevitable result of this behavior as she recognizes that “what’s certain is that we can’t be a nation of reflective, analytic problem solvers while cultivating a culture of distraction” (Jackson 19). These two ideas of distracted success and deep thought are incapable of existing within the same confines.
Overall, the combination of accessibility to the Web’s knowledge and the necessity of the YouTube generation to function in bedlam produce “a culture that settles for numb distraction” (Jackson 24). The young generation of children suffers from lack of critical reading at a young age, preoccupied with their skills to overcome the next level in a video game or create a social profile on the Web. In order to alter the current state of distraction and return the culture to a critical mind, “the elemental work of reading must be automatic…or [a child] will never be able to explore a text’s meaning” (Jackson 169). It no longer seems natural for my generation to shift between the world of cyber-reality and textbook, but even this skill is currently evident with persistent practice. However, it is gradually vanishing as people become more dependent upon the capabilities of technology. It is essential that some level of critical thought still exist in the world, or society as a whole is doomed to a future of cyborgs where distraction will always reign over reasoning.
“And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski” (Carr), writes Nicholas Carr in his article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”. Like many others, Carr has become increasingly desensitized as the Internet continues its rapid growth. Although its heavy influence on society cannot go ignored, the Internet is not the only form of media that is alarmingly affecting the public. As evaluated by Walter Kirn in his article “The Autumn of the Multitaskers”, many other distractions besides the Internet continue to plague us daily, the various interruptions slowly but surely chipping away at our ability to focus on one task, and that task only. Similarly, in Maggie Jackson’s article (very effectively titled) “Distracted”, the author considers the many temptations, claiming “The seduction of an alternative virtual universe, the addictive allure of multitasking people and things, our near-religious allegiance to a constant state of motion: these are markers of a land of distraction, in which our old conceptions of space, time, and place have been shattered” (Jackson). This statement by Jackson successfully summarizes the ideas of each author- mainly, the belief that our lives are being overrun by the many different outlets available, and how our attention spans and concentration as individuals are becoming increasing shortened as the need for constant stimuli and motion rapidly grows.
Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” is concerned with the idea that the Internet is rewiring our brains. Carr reflects on a time years ago when he was once able to spend hours a day reading and getting comfortably caught up in the text. In more recent years, Carr has begun feeling as though something is different- “I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going- so far as I can tell- but it’s changing…Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages” (Carr). As impact of the Internet is slowly devastates the author, it can be determined that he is not the only one suffering from the Internet’s negative side effects. In Kirn’s article “The Autumn of the Multitaskers”, Kirn relates his experiences on the Internet in a similar way to Carr, claiming “In reality, multitasking slows our thinking. It forces us to chop competing tasks into pieces, set them in different piles, then hunt for the pile we’re interested in, pick up its pieces, review the rules for putting the pieces back together, and then attempt to do so, often quite awkwardly” (Kirn), a description that identifies with Carr’s observations on the Internet. Futhermore, Maggie Jackson’s article “Distracted” elaborates on Carr’s and Kirn’s ideas, as she considers the future of our society is we remain so dependant on our gadgets, and so detached as a result. She writes, “we are ultimately trading our cultural and societal anchors for an age of glorious freedom, technological innovation- and darkness” (Jackson). Jackson believes that if we continue to multitask and focus constant attention on technology, society will reverse in the future, and plunge itself back into darkness in a reaction to the overly hi-tech society of the world. The author also discusses, “As our attentional skills are squandered, we are plunging into a culture of mistrust, skimming, and a dehumanizing merging between man and machine. As we cultivate lives of distraction, we are losing our capacity to create and preserve wisdom and slipping toward a time of ignorance that is paradoxically born amid an abundance of information and connectivity” (Jackson). Jackson raises an interesting point- even though we have access to more information that ever before thought possible, for society it still remains impossible to absorb and develop on this information, in what could be considered one of the greatest ironies of our time.
As a teenager growing up in this ‘distracted’ society, I can personally relate to the problems and fears posed by each author in their articles. The art of multitasking has become especially prevalent as I have become a college student, as I am now more on my own than ever before with these interruptions constantly at my fingertips. With a simple glance around my dorm room, I can easily identify a television, stereo, laptop computer, and cell phone, among other distractions. From personal experience, it becomes more difficult with each passing day to resist the temptation to pick up one of these devices while attempting to complete an assignment, such as homework, or even a simpler task, like laundry. We can almost always find ourselves plugged in at any time, to any number of gadgets. At the gym listening to an iPod; completing an essay while watching tv; social networking on Facebook but Instant Messaging five friends at the same time. Furthermore, everyday processes such as driving have become events to multitask with negative effects. In the case of driving, the rate of accidents involving distracted drivers on their cell phones increases each year. Even Kirn references this in his article, detailing how the camera on his cell phone caused him to lose focus and veer off the side of a road. However, the availability of this technology cannot be the only thing blamed- from a very young age, children are taught to be increasingly more aware of the distractions, and to almost embrace them. Now, it isn’t uncommon to see elementary school age children talking on their own cell phone, or listening to their own iPod, or rapidly typing on a computer. Similarly, as referenced in Carr’s article, people are focusing less on intellectual functions such as reading and writing as a result of this frenzied activity. Carr claims, “The more they use the web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing” (Carr). And it can only be inferred that as time continues, society will become progressively more attached to these technological comforts that dominate our lives.
It seems that modern society is entering an era in which it is acceptable to multitask in every way possible. Kirn recognizes some scary percentages in “The Autumn of the Multitaskers”, citing that Sixty three percent of teens multitask while listening to music, sixty two percent admit to multitasking while on the computer, and fifty three percent agree that they take part in other media while watching television. Personally, I take part in these activities as well. I am a part of these percentages, but I feel it is a part of the society we live in. What bothers me is the fifty eight percent of teenagers who multitask while reading. This is one endeavor that I refuse to be a part of. Too many people today are texting or returning emails while in the middle of face to face conversations. Many people even multitask during dinner, catching up on digital correspondence rather than interacting with actual family members. Banyai states that many teens admit to “texting and instant messaging each other while they download music to their IPod and update their Facebook page and complete a homework assignment and keep an eye on the episode of ‘The Hills’ flickering on a nearby television”.
Unfortunately this statement applies to my surroundings as I sat down to write this essay. The remaining minutes of One Tree Hill were playing on the dorm television as new posts appeared on a message thread on my Facebook. As I began to write I realized how many distractions were shooting at me from every direction in the dorm and I knew I had to get away. As my favorite character was shot to death on One Tree Hill and my roommates began blasting a new song on ITunes I knew it was time to hole up in my personal homework nook down the hall where all temptation to multitask would be driven from my mind and distractions would disappear in a heartbeat. It is
It is possible to get away from such activities. Jackson speaks of the way or attention is deteriorating, causing a loss of intimacy, wisdom, and cultural progress. She quotes William James, who stated “It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others”. Action must be taken in order to pursue a future where confusion, fatigue, indifference, and chaos do not rule. It is still possible to get back our deep sustained focus if we can stay attentive long enough. Every summer I work at a sleep away camp in New Hampshire as a counselor. The campers are not allowed any cell phones, IPods, laptops, televisions, or any other digital device. Even as a counselor I only have access to an old television and my cell phone for two hours at night. It is in these two summer months that we withdraw from technology and are able to retrieve the attention and ability is possible to reattach to concepts Banyai speaks about such as our old conceptions of space, time, and place. There is no reason for audio books while reading a novel. At camp it is possible to deeply read ten novels without distractions attacking the reader from every possible direction. It is here that I have hope that the predicted “dark age” is not inevitable but preventable to form deep bonds that we seem to lose during the school year. After living a more focused and human interaction centered life it is hard to return to society every September. It is a strain to return to technology such as Facebook and is strange interacting with friends who have not left technology behind as I have for two months. Kirn declares that if we can “rise above the muddle of our days and see clearly” it is possible to see the “shadowy decline” that awaits us. Unfortunately, after returning to modern society after a mere two months away it is disturbing how clear this decline is. The hold technology seems to have on everyone in the community but me as I return is completely obvious, and yet those involved have no idea what is occurring around them. All they seem to care about is what new flair they received on Facebook, while I congratulate myself for having no idea what flair is and gladly accept that it has no hold on my life.
It is ironic that multitasking originated in order to get more tasks done in a shorter amount of time, while in reality multitasking drags us away from our original task, which may now never be fully completed. Kirn brings up the question, “Is it possible to do two tasks at once while fully comprehending both fully?” It is considered the new norm in today’s society and the adolescents today consider themselves to be experts. However, this is all at the cost of their attention spans. Jackson writes that “Attention tames our inner beast”. An effort at control and attention is needed to form a conscience and empathetic feelings. There seems to be a correlation between lack of attention and lack of deep meaningful friendships and morality in the U.S. It is a sad, but true, realization that people find it difficult to focus and retain deep relationships with others. One quarter of Americans claim to have nobody as a confidante. This most likely has to do with the short snippets of conversations people use to keep in touch as they navigate their social lives online through social networking sites such as MySpace or Facebook.
Jackson uses the Oxford English Dictionary to define attention as “the act, fact, or state, of giving heed; earnest direction of the mind.” An old saying claims that there is no delete button in life, there is no backspace or eraser that can allow you to escape from your problems.” The problem is that while keeping relationships online, the little x in the top right-hand corner of the screen gives people such an escape. This escape is their own personal delete button that allows them to escape from their problems and ignore confrontation in relationships. Friendships that are kept outside of cyberspace, such as the friendships I obtained while separated from technology at camp, are ones that will survive.
The question that seems to be at the heart of the discussion is how much change is occurring and in what ways will it affect the way we live our lives. Carr asks “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, when the real question is “How is Technology and Multitasking Affecting Our Lives.” Jackson puts forth the question “how will we read”. There are technology advocates out there who believe the age of the written book has past. When done in the right way, reading helps us to understand difficult concepts and transcend to understanding subjects we previously would have passed by. Reading books is more efficient than reading off of a website. As Carr states, there are less distractions. There are no hyperlinks to catch your attention at the bottom of every page. While reading alone without distraction Carr, Jackson, and Kirn all agree that it is possible to think more deeply and really grasp the point of a novel. I agree with this fact. I love the smell and feel of a new book in my hands as I read and no novel online can ever take the place of having an actual novel in my hands. Reading Midnight Sun by Stephenie Meyer on her website was a great experience because her work goes farther than the form from which it is read. However, reading one of her actual novels is a better experience because without distractions it is easier to focus on the storyline. Overall, all three authors agree that the internet and other media have propelled multitasking to a new level and distractions have affected the way in which we live our lives. The question is, will we be able to return to the way things were, and if so is that the better option?
I must be a freak of my generation. I am absolutely awful at multi-tasking and avoid it whenever necessary. Driving a car for me just by itself is a full sensory overloading activity that requires 100 percent attentiveness. The act of driving requires being aware of hundreds of different variables and predicting how each one will change in relation of the constant adjustments that consist of controlling a ton and a half automobile (in my case a ton, which makes me probably the smallest thing on the road and therefore the most vulnerable.) For me, multitasking is goes to the point where controlling a gas, brake, and clutch pedal along with a 5-speed stick shift while simultaneously turning a steering wheel is enough. Texting and talking on my cell phone are the last things I need is to be doing while driving. Listening to the radio might be the only other thing I can do while driving only for the purpose of creating a calming effect. I am sure that if I regularly texted and talked on the cell phone, I would have gotten in to multiple accidents, and my not be here to write this essay. I can see how Kirn almost killed himself while receiving a picture message. If he were driving in Fairfield, Connecticut he would have been killed.
I am also not one of those types who listen to music while doing other things. As someone who considers music to be near the center of my life, listening to music is an activity that I take seriously. All music has multiple layers that can be picked apart, no matter how simple it can seem. To me, it is not enough to just listen to music. It should be picked apart and analyzed like any other piece of art would be. For most people my age, that would be considered strange, but then I seem to be a freak of my generation.
What seems to be stranger to my peers is the fact that I don’t do text messages. For one thing they aren’t part of my cell phone plan, so they cost a fortune. The other reason why I am not hip into texting is that I just am awful at the physical act of sending a text message. It can literally take me 10 minutes to write a sentence on my phone, and eventually I just give up and decide to call whoever I absolutely need to get in touch with.
I am still human, so I do have a facebook and use AIM. However, to me they’re such big distractions that I end up not multitasking but having my attention dominated. I do not count that as multi-tasking.
Because I do not do very much multi-tasking, I am writing this while various football games are being played on the TV. Oh yeah, and I am writing this in my dorm room. That should make things a little interesting. Who knows what will take place here at ledges 354 while I am trying to write this. At the least the posters displayed in my room of 13 scantily clad members of the New England Patriots cheerleaders will distract me at least a little.
So far, I have done a pretty good job of ignoring the football, which is impressive for me since I am a pretty big football fan. However there have been times when I have lost my gaze on the computer while listening to Aaron Rodger’s debut for the Green Bay Packers. I am noticing that this is taking a bit longer to write than the previous triangulation essay. Also, sometimes I find myself typing phrases that were recently spoken by the commentators or shouted at me by advertisements. I am trying to push on, but my hunch that I do not mix well with multitasking seems to be accurate.
As I get further into this entry, my roommate is in a process of painfully (for me) improving his skill in repeating the same four chords, G, Em, D, and C while at the same time free-styling lyrics with the same repeating melody about Long Island girls. I must say that this is quite distracting but at the same time hilarious and provides a bit of a break. However I am sure that without this distraction I would have finished this piece a good hour earlier. Kirn talks about how multitasking costs us money. Because of how much multitasking seems to mess me up, I would probably lose a ton of money. I really cannot argue with Kirn’s points since to me they make perfect sense and are actually things I might have come up with myself if I had had the same amount of multi-tasking experience that Kirn has had. Only a computer could ignore this amount of distraction and still stay on task.
However, multitasking according to Kirn is essentially an act that makes us change our thinking into that more like a computer than that of a human being. It is all about how many things you can do in a given amount of time. That is how computers are judged. As soon as we get judged by how we stack up against a computer, when will society come to the conclusion that we simply are not as good and can be replaced?
One sees it happening now. Computers are doing jobs that were once done with human hands. The last time I went to stop and shop, I saw a line for the self-checkout stations. I guess we the consumers are in too much of a rush to have to deal with anything as slow as a human being. Oh wait we are human.
Carr writes about how Google is in the process of creating artificial intelligence and on a large scale. They basically want to make the world’s biggest brain in the hope that it will make us smarter. However in this case, smart is a relative term. It is easy with Google to find information, but very rarely is this information remembered or does it appear meaningful. Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google spoke about how if one had all the world’s information directly attached to their brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than their brain was, that person would be better off. I disagree with this point. What use is information if it is meaningless? If everyone knew everything, why would anyone care about anything? Linking this back to multi-tasking, I ask when one is doing 3 or 4 different things at once, what is the main activity? Are they all considered equal in significance? A computer would say that all of these activities are considered equal in importance, but no human would say that.
The life of an average teenager consists of endless hours spent in front of a computer screen. As I write this paper, I find it extremely difficult to resist the temptations I possess. Although I don’t have AIM and my iPod running right now, I admit, I normally do. My cell phone never leaves my side and I check it almost every minute, knowing very well I don’t have a message. I’m distracted. The articles by Carr, Kirn, and Jackson provide simply explain with detail something everyone already knew. In fact, Carr and Kirn come to same realization as they discuss the metaphor of my generation. “The brain is a computer,” writes Kirn (The Atlantic 1). Both authors take note of the fact that we compare our minds the current technology, such as a clock. However, by comparing our brain to CPUs, the way humans used to think and problem solve has changed.
Walter Kirn, in the article “The Autumn of Multitaskers”, opens with a quote from Pubilius Syrus. “To do two things at once is to do neither” (The Atlantic 1). This is a very powerful quote that fits perfectly into Carr’s article “Is Google Making us Stupid.” With all of the distractions in today’s world, from phones to music and the Internet, our brains are being forced to only superficially obtain the knowledge at hand. This idea of “skimming and scanning” prevents anyone from finding a deeper meaning or critical level of the information we try to obtain while multitasking. Kirn insists, “We concentrate on that act of concentration at the expense of whatever it is we’re supposed to be concentrating on” (2). We feel less productive when we’re not multitasking, but actually, the exact opposite is true. Efficiency and hard work claim to be the motivation behind this concept of doing many things at once, but our brain becomes too overwhelmed to get much of anything done. I often will go to the library to escape the typical distractions of my dorm room. If I don’t bring my laptop and simply read, I surprise myself with how much I can actually get done. I’ve found that I can outline multiple chapters in my textbook in the same amount of time it would take to do a much smaller assignment on the computer. Carr and Kirn would agree that this is the only time my brain can focus enough to absorb the true meaning of the material at hand.
In Maggie Jackson’s Distracted, sensory detachment and intellectual fragmentation are considered commonplace in the world we inhabit. She writes, “The way we live is eroding our capacity for deep, sustained, perceptive attention- the building block of intimacy, wisdom, and cultural progress” (13). The word “eroding” itself gives this quote a very powerful meaning. The word erosion refers to a slow but certain disintegration of something, in this case, our brains. Carr would agree that the way we think has been changed for the worst, focusing on the sheer quantity of information rather than the quality, or deeper understanding. Jackson also touches on Carr’s appeal to the art of “skimming”. “This is why we are less and less able to see, hear, and comprehend what’s relevant and permanent…” (14). Both authors fear the even more extensive long-term damage computers will do to the way we learn and process. Truly engaging in thought-process and critical reading has now become a rarity, not to mention a very difficult task to master. I find that when I can focus my attention on one activity, I feel better about myself and impressed with my perseverance. This seems absurd; to get excited and give myself a pat on the back for doing something generations before me have been doing all along. It would be impossible for me to study like this all the time, taking into account the many distractions college life has to offer. Even in the safety of the library, my cell phone is out and my brain is just so used to only focusing for split seconds at a time that it takes a large amount of energy just to slow my thought process down. Referring back to Jackson’s thoughts on the erosion of our minds, she suggests that our culture as a whole will not be able to move forward until our distractions are brought back to a minimum. We are missing out of the intimacies, privacy, serenity, and wisdom that focus provides.
The arguments made by Kirn and Jackson are very similar. First, Jackson defines attention, through the words of William James, as “taking possession of the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought” (13). The focus of this definition is that the mind can only fully process or pay attention to one thing at a time. When we over-load our brains with tasks, attention is spread thin. Only a shallow understanding of each activity is acknowledged and is generally never absorbed. Jackson writes about a study that was conducted to test the affects of multitasking. Students were asked to sort cards while listening to series of sounds versus in total silence. While the students achieved the sorting goal in both trials, most could not remember what they were actually sorting in the trial with various sounds. This generation is completely capable of living with the daily stresses of multitasking, and on the surface, can achieve our goals. However, the absorption of knowledge is only on the surface and most teenagers do not even realize how these distractions are affecting them. Also, the “cyber” generation may think that we have adapted our brains to the stress of distraction; studies show that this is not true. In Jackson’s article, she discovers that multitasking actually boosts the levels of stress-related hormones such as cortical and adrenaline, potentially causing certain brain parts to atrophy after long-term abuse (The Atlantic 2). Personally, it’s become the fatigue and confusion that multitasking creates has just become a standard characteristic of my life.
Distractions are everywhere. They follow us through every step of our day from the moment we wake up to the time we go to sleep. The Internet has changed society to become a working and education-based culture that insists we obtain as much as we can, as quickly as we can. Unfortunately, the computers have promoted a negative way of going about this: multitasking. While some embrace the freedom and efficiency it provides on the surface, the way we process thought has changed forever. The articles by Carr, Kirn, and Jackson outline some of these major problems such our generations inability to focus on anything deeply and fully. By skimming or scanning readings on search engines, the brain has become overwhelmed with superficial knowledge, drastically affecting problem-solving skills. However, as Jackson points out, at some point the multitasking era must stop. When it does the world be shocked at first, but then realize that it was an inevitable change that may not have come soon enough. Theses authors fear that the metaphor of “computerized” brains is giving society the wrong idea about its capabilities.
(The revised post originally submitted at 10: 26 a.m. on 9/9/08)
In this second triangulation, featuring Nicholas Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” as the central catalyst, it has become apparent to me that my argument in the past triangulation essay is flawed in several different aspects. My previous argument that society today hasn’t become stupider, but has actually evolved as thinkers and gatherers of technology has been illustrated particularly by “Distracted” by Maggie Jackson as a theory that is erroneous in several aspects. The new evidence unleashed in this work certainly gives credence to the fact that the various technologies today have in all honesty diminished not only our ability to think, but our capacity to converse (Jackson, 17), and has deteriorated our social skills to a level that when compared to past generations, has clearly been retarded into an age which according to Jackson is propelling us towards another Dark Age (Jackson, 15). This “Dark Age of Screens,” aptly named by critic Harold Bloom (Jackson, 16), is not considered a dark age because scientific development has been stunted to a point that progress could only be exaggerated as minimal. Rather, the reason as to why the twenty-first century isn’t misconstrued under Bloom’s label is because social progress has halted. A real life situation providing ample support for this argument stems from my English class, in which, nearly all of the students reiterated the fact that they no longer have any contact with their neighbors, and subsequently, these neighbors can be most accurately described as standoffish and aloof. Technology has put up cyber barriers between not only neighbors, but communities and even more distressing, families.
Moreover, Carr wrote that his friends found that, “The more that they used the web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing. (Carr, 58)” As bad as that phenomenon has become in adults, the one faint sliver of hope is that they have had lots of experience reading long works during their pre-internet days, or perhaps more aptly put, before the internet era (perhaps due to all of the changes, we should begin marking time b.i.e and i.e). At any rate, the fact is that these adults had exposure to reading the classics, Shakespeare, Plato, so on and so forth. However, children growing up in this generation haven’t had the same training. Ergo, it is much more harmful for kids to be missing the mental development and stimulation which is gained from reading, synthesizing, and thinking than it is for adults. In one study, the results indicated that only thirty percent of college graduates can understand a simple document such as a food label (Jackson, 155). Thirty Percent? That means that seventy percent of people graduate college aren’t adept enough to read how many calories are on the back of a granola bar package. Perhaps that is why United States fifteen year olds rank twenty-fourth out of twenty-nine developed countries on a test of problem solving skills that relate to analytical reasoning (Jackson, 18). That unfortunately, is not all. Another survey found that only fifty-seven percent of Americans didn’t read one book in an entire year (Jackson, 155). Taking that into account, it wouldn’t be that extreme to forecast that of those fifty-seven percent, more than half of that number are kids. Basically, that is the reason as to why students often “lack the critical thinking skills that are the bedrock of an informed citizenry and the foundation of scientific and other advancements (Jackson, 18).” Or in blunter more precise terms, Google is making us stupid.
Likewise, the drive to constantly be connected and facilitating the use of technology has begun to impact many other different aspects of life. Case in point, Walter Kirn, the author of “Autumn of the Multitaskers,” referenced a story about himself as he was winding through a snow capped road on the desolate flats of Wyoming while he was trying to text pictures of himself and simultaneously look at pictures of his girlfriend despite the fact that he was trying to drive through a snow storm. The truly amazing thing is that he was more concerned about gawking at the latest picture on his phone than he was about his own safety. What’s more, even when he knew he was going to crash, he wondered where his phone went. Forget about personal safety, the inescapable damage to his car, the most important thing on his mind was, in all honesty, whether his phone was still intact. Proving without any umbrage to people who feel that new technologies are dynamic and helpful tools without any drawbacks, that they are grossly mistaken in their assumptions and beliefs because new technologies have very few redeeming qualities. Indeed, they almost cost this man his life, and the ironic thing was that his girlfriend was shockingly unsympathetic to his woes, undoubtedly because she herself was far too caught up in the technological dance to realize the series sequence of events that had just befell her boyfriend (Kirn, 2). In rather plain terms, one could say that she may have been distracted, and her lack of attention to this deathly serious matter, lends a certain positive premonition to the argument that the global community, and especially here in the United States, are “nurturing a culture of social diffusion, intellectual fragmentation, [and] sensory detachment (Jackson 13).” Resulting in something being amiss and that particular “something” is attention. Due to that alarming fact, the proposition that the “way we live is eroding our capacity for deep, sustained, perceptive attention (Jackson, 13),” can be subsequently sequestered. Thereby bringing home the larger point that “Google is Making Us Stupid.”
An additional point which supports this comes from professor Edmundson who is part of the English Department at the University of Virginia. He wrote in an article titled “On the Uses of A Liberal Education As Lite Entertainment for Bored College Students” in the book The Individual in the Community. In the article, he disdainfully references the points that he needs to grade easier, and be less challenging so students will write positive recommendations (Edmundson, 292), and I believe that supports Carr's statement because it proves that students today no longer have the capacity to think as deeply as Edmundson wants them to, making his class seem extraordinarily hard. Thus the inflation of grades serves as proof of the harmful effects of technology and of social networking. Additionally, students want the funny, blithe, and easy professor because they want to be entertained as if they are in some kind of real-world video game as opposed to the challenging and demanding professor whom requires a greater application of cognitive power because this corrupted web-based culture has placed an emphasis on having a good time instead of working hard, challenging oneself, and seeking to gain knowledge. Thus, academia is being watered down so people can still be successful, and this phenomenon is as a result of an infatuation with technology and an over-abundance of multi-tasking.
Nevertheless, as one-sided as this argument appears to be, there are several interesting and informative pieces of the text that give credence to a sustainable argument that Google is actually not making us stupider. The first of these pieces of evidence which insinuates this claim is that one-hundred and seventy four thousand books were published this past year. Hence, this fact indicates that there is a relatively large audience which still reads books, indicating that society may in fact be equally as intelligent as in the past. In occurrence with that fact, another existential piece of evidence is that over the many centuries, the vessel used to read has changed quite drastically. From primitive cave paintings to clay tablets, scrolls on papyrus, illuminated manuscripts by monks in the early middle ages, to printed books after the invention of the printing press by Gutenberg, to the current medium preferred by our society which is the internet. By that means, this transformation in preferred mediums signals the evolution as readers and thinkers, and consequently we aren’t becoming thinkers of a lesser caliber. Jackson reiterates that point when she writes, “the form or vessel of our text is crucial, but the medium is just one of many messages that can be heard in the cacophonous culture of reading (Jackson, 159).” By that means, the fact that people are no longer reading books is not in fact harmful to our mental well-being. In fact, according to this statement, there isn’t any noticeable change despite the revolutionizing of vessels in which people read.
While taking those particulars into account, I have come to the conclusion that Google is making us stupider on a multitude of levels. The first being that ever increasing technology and the insistence on multi-tasking has made our attention wane as a society making us more distracted and less attentive. One of the offshoots of this is rapidly rising rates of ADD diagnoses or as Edward Hallowell, a psychiatrist, insinuates, “How do you know that you have ADD or a severe case of modern life (Jackson, 17)?” At any rate, the point is that people are by and large unable to focus on one particular avenue of thought, and as a result, people have lost much of the ability to think critically. Due to this mental handicap, a domino effect has been set off that is beginning to permeate a culture full of mistrust, “skimming, and a dehumanizing merging between man and machine (Jackson, 16).” Further, as in the case of the driver with the obsession over his phone, there has been a shift and breakdown in the order of priorities, which as the song selected by General Cornwallis had his defeated British Army play while surrendering to the Continentals at Yorktown was titled, “The world turned upside down.” The breakdowns in society and culture, stemming from the effects of the internet has, as painful as it is to say, is indeed making us stupider.
Post a Comment