This is the second class for which I’ve had to read “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The first class I had to read this article for was my freshman composition class, Growing Up Electronic. In that class we discussed what it meant to grow up in the information age and how it was affecting the ways in which we perceived the world. In that class, I recall being highly skeptical about Carr’s argument about Google making us stupid and how it was changing the ways in which we read, but I was eventually convinced to believe that maybe his arguments did have some substance to them after all. Now, I not only remain just as skeptical about Carr’s argument, but I also don’t agree with his views at all.

I feel like his sensational article was written to probably drum up some form of public support or interest in a very dramatic manner. In fact, I think it relates very closely to the article “Why Jonny Can’t Write” because of how theatrical it sounded. I think because I perceived it as being over dramatic, I honestly felt like his argument didn’t really have very steady legs to stand on. There is no reason why Google should affect the way we read or think. Maybe it’s because I’ve grown up with the internet always being there, but I don’t think I think of a long piece of text any differently from short articles. In fact, I’m pretty sure I prefer longer texts to several short articles because I feel like articles don’t really explore topics in depth as much, leading to the shallow understanding that Carr was talking about. I think short articles are useful when one is specifically looking for a shallow understanding of a topic – why should it be necessary to always want a deep and involved understanding? However, if a more profound meaning is desired, why is it that reading a book or even a longer article is considered such a momentous task? Carr’s exaggerations really irritated me and I wanted more than anything to give him examples countering his arguments. (By the way, does anyone know what study of online research habits he was referring to?) Even his example about the writer Friedrich Nietzsche who used a typewriter to continue writing, which changed his writing to become shorter and concise is only from one person. I disagree with this because I feel I am the exact opposite. When I physically write papers, I am far more concise with my words than when I am typing simply because of the differences in the amount of effort that is exerted.

I agree with him on only two topics in the entire paper and those are 1) that sometimes Google can detract from truly understanding a topic because it is easy to search for the answer, especially when it comes to science and math questions and 2) that the way we read and write can definitely change based on our experiences. I know from experience unfortunately that it is definitely easier to search for answers on how to solve certain problems or even to Sparknotes summaries of books, but people who choose to use those resources do not have a changed way of thinking; I interpret it as they simply have no interest in the topic at hand and want to save themselves time for activities that they do wish to invest time into. Additionally, our ways of reading and writing can certainly change, but I don’t think that Google or the internet is harming or modifying them in any critical way that is forcing us to become more economical with either writing or reading. Even if I were to believe that the internet has taken away a part of us that Carr finds so incredibly important, I will argue to my last breath that it has done us so much more good than harm.

TL;DR: I just don’t agree with Carr and don’t find his argument very convincing.

What do you think? Do you agree with Carr about the internet changing how we think, read, and/ or write? Is Google actually making us stupid?