In the book The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, Nicholas Carr asserts that the longer society interacts with the Internet, the less likely society will be able to engage in intellectual thinking, resulting in a new definition of intelligence (measured by high-tech standards). This claim by Carr is developed throughout the book. First, he identifies how he came up with the problem, and then encompasses different pieces of evidence, including anatomy, biology, history, and societal factors to help support his overall argument.
In chapter one, Carr starts out by explaining his own personal experience with technology, especially the Internet. Carr mentions that the Internet was having too great of an impact on him than the simple, self-contained, disconnecting computers ever had. Because of this introduction, the audience not only clearly understands the purpose of the book, but they began to give credibility to the reader. Carr establishes ethos by explaining his own troubles with the Internet, making him able to connect more with the audience.
With this intention, Carr is able to comprise some evidence to help persuade his audience of just how great an effect the Internet has made on society. In chapter two, Carr affirms that the brain is not a fixed organ–that it is continually adapting to experiences and circumstances that surround it. To do this, he describes the term neuroplasticity: the ability of the brain to change throughout an individual’s life. This is one of Carr’s most important pieces of information because it presents the idea that if the population continues to surround themselves with the Internet, they begin embracing the way the Internet thinks, thus altering the way they think. Carr continues on these ideas in chapter nine. This time, Carr focuses on different kinds of memories. He explains that the anatomy of the brain has to change in order to store long-term memories, and that the repetition of an action encourages the consolidation of a short-term memory. Just like in chapter two, these comments from Carr in chapter nine entail a changing brain.
In the same way, Carr uses history to help strengthen his argument. In chapter three, Carr explains the significance of the creation of clocks and maps, and how they made us go beyond our own thinking and develop new ideas. Carr emphasizes the importance of the map and the clock, that they “placed a new stress on measurement and abstraction, on perceiving and defining forms and processes beyond those apparent to the senses”(45). However, Carr explains the total opposite of the Internet in chapter seven, saying that the Net is more knowledge-getting rather than knowledge-making. Carr illustrates that because of the Internet, our ability to solve different problems and go deeper in thinking has diminished. Society is unable to engage in intellectual thinking because of the Internet.
In addition, Carr continues to include history as support to his claim. In chapter eight, Carr describes Google’s great history, and its purpose–to provide you the information that you requested, thus decreasing society’s need to participate in any sort of cerebral thinking. Carr’s point is that society no longer knows how to strike a balance that incorporates quiet, calm, and deep learning. The brain operates like a machine. Similarly, in chapter four, Carr explains that the Internet is cheaper and a chance to make more of a profit. Therefore, more and more information is being easily accessible on the Internet, exposing society to more time reading electronically rather than on paper. This results in a heavier-tech based society (especially in schools), affecting the way society measures intelligence.
By the same token, Carr describes the dangers in transferring over from print copies to e-books in chapter six. Carr affirms that books have remained fairly safe from the Net’s influence; however, the e-book has started to take hold. They allow you the ability to download as many books as you want, they have new high resolution screens that reduce eye strain, and they offer the ability to enlarge text or sound out words (which are benefits of the elderly and others). However, Carr claims that reading printed books in e-book form has become as distracting as reading websites. For example, the Kindle can redirect you to an article on related topics or a word’s definition via Google. Carr warns that society is no longer in the age of print. Because of this, Carr believes a more efficient way of learning has yet to exist. Equally, in chapter five, carr demonstrates the Internet’s influence on society by explaining how it has absorbed and digitized every sort of information possible. Therefore, more information exists on the Net, thus resulting in more distractions. The more distractions are present, the less likely society will be able to participate in quiet, calm, and deep learning as did happen when the map and clocks were invented.
Finally, in chapter ten, Carr summons his book by asserting that the literary mind and its companion of meditative thinking may fall victim to the Net, and what its users call “progress.” Carr is unsure of how much society will rely on the Internet and other technological sources in the near future. This warning by Carr is a direct result of the less intellectual thinking that has occurred as the evolution of technology has progressed. Yet, society is unable to identify that warning sign. Instead, they embrace it, resulting in a new and dangerous measure of intelligence.
In response to Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows, I found it difficult to strongly agree with Carr’s approach in trying to persuade his audience that the longer society interacts with the Internet, the less likely we’ll able to engage in intellectual thinking; thus, resulting in society measuring intelligence through high-technological standards, which will prove to be detrimental to society. Though I agree with his claim overall, I disagree with how he presented some of the evidence. In the book, Carr encompassed a different variety of evidence to support his claim, including biology, history, and psychology. I found myself agreeing with Carr’s use of biology and history to help support his claim, which influenced how I thought about the subject matter. However, I found myself disagreeing with his use of psychology to help support his claim. In effect, this resulted in me questioning the way Carr approached his research.
First, Carr encompasses biological evidence to support his claim. He describes the term neuroplasticity, which is the brain’s ability to change throughout an individual’s life. More specifically, neuroplasticity, as Sara Bernard writes her article, “Neuroplasticity: Learning Physically Changes the Brain,” is the “selective organizing of connections between neurons in our brains. This means that when people repeatedly practice an activity…their neural networks…shape themselves according to that activity or memory”(1). Carr gives an example of this when he cited the work of biologist Eric Kandel in chapter two, who performed a study on sea slugs in the early 1970s. Kandel found that the repeating act of touching a slug’s gill without causing the animal any harm will result in the slug being accustomed to the sensation. It learns that it won’t hurt. This experiment gave way to what is known as Hebb’s rule: “Cells that fire together wire together”(Carr 27).
Both quotes illustrate that our brain constantly changes and adapts to the situations in which we surround ourselves. Henceforth, if we surround ourselves with the Internet, then our brains will acquire Internet’s way of operating. Personally, I experience this when I spend too much time gathering baseball statistics via the Internet. I tend to let the Internet do the calculating for me. The more I rely on the Internet, the less likely I’ll be able to perform the calculations effectively. My brain becomes accustomed to how the Internet gives information. Deep thinking is not associated with how the Internet operates. We embrace the way the Internet thinks; therefore, we measure intelligence by that standard. Because of this, the reference to neuroplasticity became appropriate in Carr’s book, making his argument only the more persuasive.
In addition, Carr includes historical references in his book to help support his argument. In chapter three, Carr discusses the importance of clocks and maps. and how they made us go beyond our own thinking and develop new ideas. Carr emphasizes the importance of the map and the clock, and how crucial they became in the development of our thinking. Maps and clocks “gave man a new and more comprehending mind,” Carr noted, “better able to understand the unseen forces that shape his surroundings and his existence”(41). This quote demonstrates that maps and clocks made mankind go beyond their own thinking. They required us to solve problems in which we had not been accustomed. They emphasized the importance of engaging in intellectual thinking. With this, mankind was able to solve anything.
However, Carr’s purpose is to explain how that philosophy has diminished since the increased use and development of technology, specifically the Internet. In chapter seven, Carr asserts that the Net has placed a new strategy in creating ideas, stating that, “As we practice browsing, surfing, scanning, and multitasking, our plastic brains may well become more facile at those tasks”(140). This quote connects to neuroplasticity, articulating the dangers of continually using the Net as a source. We have become so reliant on information on the Web that we find ourselves not putting our intellectual minds to action. Carr illustrates that because of the Internet, our ability to solve different problems and go deeper in thinking has diminished. Society is unable to engage in intellectual thinking because of the Internet. The creation of clocks and maps were a result of deeper, more intellectual thinking. They were not a product of technology, meaning that their creation process had not been influenced by the Internet or any other technological advancement. Carr affirms this by saying, “What the Net diminishes is…the ability to know, in depth, a subject for ourselves”(143). This is seen through how we interact with maps and clocks now.
Most maps have become digital (i.e. google maps), and most clocks are digital as well. In an article from the BBC titled, “Why Paper Road Maps Won’t Die,” the idea of digital media taking over is professed when S.J. Velazquez asserts that the “digital publishing revolution [has] sapped the life force of the paper books, newspapers, and magazines”(2). This quote explains the great influence technology has had on our society. The Internet allows people to access maps, clocks, and anything else in which they ask, sucking the intellect that it once required to create such masterpieces. Because of this comparison between past and current society, I find Carr’s thesis only the more appropriate and convincing.
Finally, Carr incorporates psychology in his book for the purpose of strengthening his argument. However, it didn’t have that effect. In chapter two, Carr mentions the conflict between empiricism and rationalism. He explains that empiricism is the idea that “what we know comes entirely through our experiences, through what we learn as we live…we are products of nurture, not nature”(28). On the other hand, rationalism is the idea that “we are born with built-in mental “templates” that determine how we perceive and make sense of the world”(Carr 28). In other words, rationalists believe that experiences are born, not learned. Carr tends to lean more on the empiricists’ idea, stating that, “The brain is not the machine we thought it to be…the cellular components do not form permanent structures or play rigid roles…They change with experience, circumstance, and need”(29) Carr’s purpose of mentioning both rationalism and empiricism is unclear to me. I understand why he included empiricism as support for his claim, but I don’t see the connection/purpose with rationalism. He spends only a brief time explaining rationalism, and in those few sentences, he never explains its connection to the Internet’s influence on human thinking. He does with empiricism, stating what was said above; however, empiricism is a philosophy that can interpreted in many ways.
For example, empiricism can from a very scientific way of thinking as well as a very spiritual way of thinking. In an article from the ScienceDaily titled “Empiricism,” it is affirmed that “empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements”(1). This quote demonstrates that empiricism can be viewed through a scientific mindset. On the contrary, the article “Religious Empiricism” explains religious empiricism, which is the “belief that things should only be believed if they can be seen or reasonably inferred, couple with the belief that the physical evidence and logic point to religious belief. Thus it stands apart from skeptical empiricism, which bases beliefs on the evidence but is skeptical about God and miracles”(1).
This quote depicts religious empiricism, and the fact that there are many other different philosophies that go under the broad term “empiricism.” Car did not define the exact philosophical idea of empiricism he was referencing. It seemed as if he did not engage in as much thorough research into this idea as he did with biology and history. Because of this, I found Carr’s reference to empiricism and psychology ineffective and irrelevant. He confused me. This confusion made it difficult to understand how empiricism directly connected to his overall argument. As a result, I began raising some questions as to how he constructed his research, making it difficult to strongly agree with his overall claim.
Overall, I found it difficult to strongly agree with Carr’s development of his book The Shallows because of his incorporation of both vague and ambiguous data. I found the purpose of some of his references unclear. This affected how I approached and thought of the subject matter. On the other hand, Carr did include a wide variety of both quantity and quality pieces of evidence, especially his descriptive references to biology and history. For this reason, I found his argument more convincing rather not because of the amount of information he provides through these different studies and his in-depth analysis of how these studies connect to his main idea. In effect, he explains the significance of these studies, and how they support his central claim. Because of this, I found it more appropriate to agree rather than disagree with Carr’s warning that technology will soon influence the way we think and measure intelligence.
