It’s not the lack of memorization that bothered Carr, though. His concern, based on intuition rather than data, was the growing inability to focus on a piece of long-form writing in a way that allows the reader to resonate to the “intellectual vibrations” of an author’s words. “In the quiet spaces opened up by the sustained, undistracted reading of a book, or by any other act of contemplation, for that matter, we make our own associations, draw our own inferences and analogies, foster our own ideas,” he wrote. Those opportunities for mental improv are being drowned out, according to Carr, by noisy and distracting “content.”
Carr’s 2008 article appeared before Twitter really took off, before smartphones and constant texting and checking in and googling became second nature, especially among twentysomethings. In just a few more years, distractions would be popping up not only on the laptop at your desk but on your mobile device everywhere—while you walked down the street, waited for a bus, rode the bus, went to the bathroom, stood still, all the quiet places where people used to let their minds wander for a bit and see where the musing led. (Even the shower, where I do some of my best thinking, is being invaded by waterproof iPods and smartphones.)
In 2009, The Atlantic published a rejoinder to Carr by Jamais Cascio, a fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Not only are we not getting stupider, Cascio wrote; we’re getting smarter, as the human brain evolves to take advantage of the hive mind of the web. Focus and attention might be sacrificed because of all the distractions and hyperlinks, he wrote, but they are being replaced by “fluid intelligence—the ability to find meaning in confusion and solve new problems, independent of acquired knowledge.”
Only a handful of neuroscientists have looked directly at the brain in action to see if that’s what’s actually happening. Among them is a team from UCLA that used functional MRI scanning on a group of older adults to visualize electrical activity in their brains while they performed two cognitive tasks: reading a book and searching the Internet.
Led by psychiatrist and neuroscientist Gary Small, the scientists divided 24 subjects, aged fifty-five to seventy-six, into two groups: 12 who were experienced Googlers, and 12 who had never used Google before. In both groups, functional MRI scans showed that reading a book engaged regions in the temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes of the brain that were involved in language, reading, memory, and visual skills. So far, so good.
Next, the subjects were asked to do a Google search on a topic of interest to them, such as “What are the health benefits of chocolate?” While they were searching, their brains showed activation in the same regions that were involved in reading. But in some subjects, additional brain activity was recorded in the frontal pole, anterior temporal region, cingulate, and hippocampus—brain areas involved in decision-making, complex reasoning, memory, and vision. The subjects whose brains got more active while googling were those from the web-savvy group, who were familiar with Google to begin with. The web novices didn’t engage in searching in the same way, and googling never managed to get their brains in gear.
“A simple, everyday task like searching the Web appears to enhance brain circuitry,” Small said. People in the web-savvy group were using those circuits during the functional MRI scans because they already had them available to use, having strengthened them during previous episodes of googling. Small and his colleagues were mostly interested in web searching as a way to stave off cognitive declines in old age—their paper was published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry—but it’s also possible to read these results as suggesting something about brain changes in the hyperlinked young. It was just a small pilot study, with only a dozen people in the Internet-literate group. But it might be a useful counterbalance to the conventional wisdom that Millennials have lost the ability to deal with anything more complex than screen-size bursts and 140-character thoughts. Google, it seems, might be doing something different to the brains of digital natives, creating a new set of neural connections and engaging young brains in an unprecedented way. With their brains thus wired, Millennials might be using the web as a vehicle for sophisticated thinking and higher-order cognition. And they might be even more mentally engaged while online than their elders are while reading a book.
See what we're tweeting about
23 Comments
Add CommentSo the google generation know where to look.. I do hope none of them are involved in surgery, flying, space programs, construction, diplomacy, art,...well every occupation that is unplugged.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love to see them google throttle, flap settings coming into land.
"Mars one here, we appear to have lost our google connection, our plants are dieing what do we do?"
It doesn't make you stupid, it makes you ignorant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Once your mind is clear of actual facts, goes his argument, you have room for sophisticated analysis and problem-solving" is amongst the stupidest logic I've seen around this subject. You *cannot* do any sophisticated reasoning or problem solving if you don't have any data "in RAM" - there is so little reference, so much things you don't know that you don't know, that no serious problem solving can be performed.
This kind of "logic" comes from the very generation that suffers from this referential and cultural ignorance, so they're unable to actually understand the difference - they don't see their blind spot.
He who seeks knowledge for the joy of learning chooses that which is true wisdom. If you don't know who said that Google it. Don't beat yourself up author, your problem isn't the internet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't believe the problem is the internet or Google, or a reliance on either. I believe the problem has a more foundational root in overall sloth. Many people, even with Google, never bother to look up things because they don't deem it important. Most people I've met rely on information found in hearsay, instead of actual fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry this test. Who said, "640K is more memory than anyone will ever need?" I guarantee most people don't know and more over, have no clue as to the correct answer.
My point? People are content in their perception that they have knowledge and do not seek it out of laziness.
Agree. The problem today is the illusion that they don't *need* knowledge because it's out there in the 'net
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would argue (Engineer, age 25) that I know a great deal more facts because of my ability to answer any question I have instantly, not less. Anyone who argues Google makes you less intelligent is probably over 45 and a feels like they have missed the proverbial technology boat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a 30 something, I straddle the both the new and old paradigms. I actually had a "Web Surfing" class in my freshman year of college. Nevertheless, my generation embraced "googling" with enthusiasm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat being said, I've noted with occasional (and increasing) concern the changes in the character of my attention and my use "down time". As the article mentions, I used to daydream and make random connections while standing in line at the bank, or during my bathroom breaks. Now on the other hand, I'm looking for my phone at every break. It feels like as time goes by and these trends continue, my "attention deficit" only increases. It worries me that my abstract thinking and personal reflection time are getting spent on interesting websites, scrabble games, and streaming movies.
And to counterpoint my own experience, my significant other seems to exemplify the traits alluded to by the EFF guy in the article. While she admittedly spends hours and hours with eyes on a screen, that time is spent researching countless new topics in incredible depth. Her ability to maintain long term focus has only gotten stronger with the internet.
I suspect the internet only serves to amplify inherent character traits toward distraction seeking or self direction.
That is a pattern common with back-lit screens. It doesn't happen with non back-lit screens such as the original Kindle. Sometimes people confuse correlation with causation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery generation of geezers has found some reason to falsely claim that younger generations were somehow not as good. They have always been wrong and somewhat arrogant in their assessments. Before Google we had encyclopedias. You could look up almost anything. Somehow the encyclopedia generation don't complain that access to all that data made them stupider than their parents but that would be the logical conclusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, no one is on record as having said, "640K is more memory than anyone will ever need." It is usually attributed to Bill Gates back in the 80s, but he says he never said it and there is no verifiable evidence that he did. I'm not sure why I would need to remember that factoid when it can be so quickly Googled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI reserve my memory for facts that are critical to my job or my life. I don't try to remember my Aunt Thelma's sugar cookie recipe because I only make them once a year. But, my mother's lasagna recipe is embedded. I have no idea if a hard copy of the recipe is still in my house.
As the study at the end of the article indicates, how you Google is important. The things I research on the web as part of my work have nothing to do with which Kardashian is having children by what man and everything to do with hundreds of research studies that would be impossible for anyone to memorize verbatim. I just need to know what I am looking for as well as a grasp of the most relevant facts. Before the Internet I still didn't memorize verbatim, I just looked the details up in the library - which took longer than Google.
I guess the questions are what is better: rote memory or the use of writing to store information for later; and reflection or acting on impulses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we rely too heavily on stored knowledge, what will happen if somehow we lose electricity and all that knowledge isn't as easily accessible? I know that I learned a lot form Google that I wouldn't have even begun to have retrieved from my county library, such as demonstrations from YouTube and obscure knowledge such as how to lacto-ferment vegetables. Knowledge is too precious to play around with, and it should be passed down from generation to generation. I guess, there is too much knowledge out there, so how do we pass it down? I suppose, the only way to pass all the knowledge down through the generations is through Google.
As for the other question, what is better reflection or pressing a button. I am not sure. I am an artist, so I try to spend at least 3 hours a day by myself in reflection. I come up with story ideas, reorganize memories, paint and repaint pictures in my mind. I go for leisurely walks where I mentally take pictures of what is around me. I also like Facebook, it is what lead me to this article and this discussion. I would say that because of my reflection, I am deeper than my peers, but I also would say less aware of everything that is going on around me.
My guess would be that history will tell if reflection is better than connection. It will certainly be interesting going forth in this digital age.
That makes a lot of sesne dude. Wow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDotAnon.tk
Young generations totally rely to Google whenever they have questions they don't know. We cannot blame them coz of the fact that google makes it easier for them. I think the best strategy to retaining info in mind is to use the internet and jot down notes for future purposes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.stop2blog.dk/inspection-systems.html
Young generations totally rely to Google whenever they have questions they don't know. We cannot blame them coz of the fact that google makes it easier for them. I think the best strategy to retaining info in mind is to use the internet and jot down notes for future purposes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.stop2blog.dk/inspection-systems.html
Where's my View-Master?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisData, facts, information. All available on Google. But isn't that so two dimensional? Data, facts, and information are the foundation for higher level problem solving. In order to understand complex relationships of forces in the world around us, we must acquire knowledge and house it on-board. That knowledge is what makes us ABLE to think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, do you think a good cabbie relies on a map? No, he KNOWS the streets well enough that re-routing on the fly becomes second nature.
People that think "Thinking" is a matter of factoids and information on the 'cloud', drive me bananas. They cannot think their way out of a box. So much for their advanced college degree that they googled their way through. They have nothing to offer civilization, society, an employer, or much of anyone.
While drifting off to sleep, allow no words to pass thru your mind. This is easier than it sounds. First, no stories are allowed, then no sentences, then strive for a blank awareness. The speech center will cede dominance to the visual center and dream like imagery will arise. These are typically fainter images than one's dreams, but can be quite vivid. After this stage, memorize your hands in a steepled (Mr. Burns like) position. This will take at least a year, but work on this can be done at otherwise unfocused moments. At length, this visual memory work will result in the sense of a second pair of hands, somewhat like an amputated limb, and going to sleep with this image will lead to finding your hands in your dreams and consequent lucid dreaming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho argues that "Google makes you less intelligent"? The problem isn't Google, it's the attitude that you don't need to know anything because you can find it on the Internet. How can you think clearly about any subject if you don't have the basic facts in your head?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Every generation of geezers has found some reason to falsely claim that younger generations were somehow not as good." That may well be so. However, today the older generation actually works to dumb down the younger generation, all for the sake of the mighty buck! Think of junk food, mindless entertainment and gadgets taylor-made for instant "communication" and time-wasting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was Bill Gates....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't you just love generalisations ;-)
People like rshoff entirely miss the point here (probably yet another old person who doesn't get it, and wants to rage at the young whippersnappers of the world and their newfangled ways)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing Google, JSTOR, etc, doesn't mean we don't retain facts; it means we retain them differently, in a way that puts more emphasis on substance than minutiae.
Take language, for instance. I'm an absolutely miserable speller, undeniably spoiled by ever-constant access to spell checks, but that doesn't mean I don't take the time to learn words. Instead, it means that I take time to think about the meaning of words, their connotation, usage, the ways they may subtly differ from other very similar words, and that's what I remember, instead of focusing on simply knowing know to spell them.
This is what we do. We remember information by significance, by the connections it has to other pieces of information, and the places in which its useful, what you might call the ecology of an idea, and that's what we store, looking up the minutiae of it later when we need to recall that. This use of digital information as "auxiliary storage", which is exactly what it is, frees up mental resources to focus on storing different aspects of knowledge that we might not be able to, were we to memorize things the way our forebearers did. That's why, when someone who understands and uses Google gets on and searches for something, fMRIs show greater brain activity, because we're recalling those associations with what we're searching, maybe thinking back to past searches or related bits of information we've come across.
Just earlier today I had a discussion on climate sensitivity. I remember a paper that gave a lower-then normal estimate, and that was significant. I didn't remember the authors, the title, the year, the journal, or much about the paper itself, merely that it involved ice age data, and that Real Climate had an article on it, and that was more than enough to find it in about 15 seconds.
I may not remember that minutiae in the same detail as someone used to only working with on-hand information, so it's conceivable that such a person might remember a paper like that in greater detail, but I'm fairly confident that I remember MORE papers than most such people on most topics, because I remember nothing but the bare minimum to find them later (and what their significance was). With Google at hand, that means I can recall a greater sum of relevant information. In effect, Google is being used to artificially increase memory capacity. How is that bad?
Acoyauh2 re:12:20PM on 1/11/13 I believe you have it right. They are ignorant rather than stupid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point is that Google does not make you stupid, no more than owning a handgun makes you a murderer (or owning a pressure cooker makes you a "social Bomber"). Google is a tool, like money is a tool, a car is a tool, etc. The key thing with knowledge is knowing what stuff is important to remember, and what you have time to look up...speakers review the speech and have cue cards or tele-prompters to keep them focused on the important material, sales people, same thing. Myself, as an engineering technician, electro-mechanical tech, etc., even a team leader, all these things require memory, writting things down helps to remember them...google can help you find material, but REMEMBERING is a skill you must PRACTICE. No one can remember EVERYTHING of course, it is vital to develop the propensity to learn (use nuemonics, stories, etc. to remember things), it is not "rocket science" but does require cognitive effort. I recall being in classrooms, where some students would simply open an internet page and READ the material to the class as a "presentation", not even from note cards, but read it off the computer screen (while sitting down, not standing...and in inappropriate clothing for a formal learning environment)...LAZY leads to STUPID (or more precisley, lazy leads to apathy and other poor performance factors that will not lead to success in any area of life). Google yourself smart, or Google yourself stupid, your choice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this