Please post summaries for discussions like this. Links to external sites are acceptable only as a reference for more information, not for promotional purposes or as a substitute for commenting directly. No one should have to browse to an external site to take part in a discussion here. I'm removing the link until you directly post material for discussion. After all, this is a writing site. Use your own words, don't just point to someone else's.
Not the first time I’ve read an article singing the same tune. I think this mindset comes from an intrinsic fear of letting the information belong to ALL the people. Look how long the Bible was kept in a language incomprehensible to the common folk. Heaven forbid the average mother should garner enough information on the web to know that the fancy Latin word she has just been thrown to explain her son’s ailment translates into ‘pain of unknown cause.’ That’s not an answer. When she came into the office, she knew as much already. If ALL the people have ALL the information, at what point is that beautifully framed diploma from the University of Florida, hanging proudly from my den wall, just that, a piece of paper and nothing more?
Ha! I think that the article's concerns are valid, though. A lot of people - especially kids - have supplanted reading books with reading online. They don't know how to use dictionaries or encyclopedias. Some of my schoolmates use Google to find a book summary rather than actually reading the book for a class, even though the whole point is to read the book itself. The Internet promotes a condensing of information, and often this means that people don't have the patience to read anything beyond a couple of paragraphs, just like the article said. And actually connecting what they read to everything else - who needs to think of connections on their own when all they have to do is click a hyperlink? Of course, before the Internet, we did all our research through books. Encyclopedias can take years to compile and write, so the information is often outdated, especially when it comes to science where advances are made nearly every day. So the Internet also promotes a quick dissemination of information, and more people are knowledgeable about what's going on in the real world. I guess it's just a matter of finding balance. It's using the Internet to the exclusion of all other forms of information that puts the mind in danger, I think.
People always have had to filter information. Whether it be from the Internet, television, newspapers and magazines, or folk tales handed down by tradition, people have to critically evaluate the reliability of any information they get hold of. Making more information readily available does not alter that fact, except that the filters have to be applied more efficiently to handle the volume of facts and opinions. So does the Internet make people more stupid? Hell, no. Does it allow them to hide their stupidity behind persuasive voices of "authority"? Almost certainly. It's a tool. No more, no less.
I’m going to play devil’s advocate and say that a lot of these opinions are elitist. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve been elitist at times. I can remember during high school, sitting through Life Management Skills, or Health class, neither of which had honors level versions. I can remember the discomfort of sitting with the jocks, and the stoners, and the trouble makers, just waiting to get to my next class which was an honors or AP course, where I could be surrounded by the benevolent cloud of other academics and teachers who listened to Narada and discuss esoteric topics which required the extended vocabulary of which I was jealously proud. The fact of the matter is, the jocks, and the stoners, and the trouble makers are part of the human experience as well. Are we not prospective writers? Should we so quickly begin to prune away the human experience of which we should be writing?
That's true. it's also fast becoming the same thing. My opinion isn't really elitist, it's just overly-cynical. I'm not really a fan of the human race in general, and tend to be over critical of most aspects of humanity.
Haha, I know the feeling. It once was so bad my grades were slipping because I was too lazy to get off the computer. A very, very bad sign...
it's happening to me.....any assignment I get for skool, I tell my parents I hav to run a search for it and get online........apart from the 5 hours I already am.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I get the feeling you skimmed the article. It's about how reading on the net is fundamentally different than reading novels or longer works, and how reading on the net is dominating our reading time. It is the dominance of "short-form, skimming, hyper-link clicking" reading that is actually changing the neural pathways in our brains and making long form reading harder the more we read on the net. Hence the derogatory title. It's not about actual IQ drop, but shortening attention span. And that mental alteration is evidenced most often by the need to skim longer works to more quickly filter the info and get to the point. As evidenced by the example of the newspapers placing abstracts on the second page. It is also this very need to skim that prevents deep reading and deep thinking that we are so used to.
