My apologies for missing class today, I'm feeling a bit under the weather :(
There have been quite a few articles I've read lately that discuss intelligence levals and how they are affected by reading. In my last post I disagreed with the argument that in order to read you have to be smart. In this post I will disagree with the argument that the internet is making us stupid.
The fact that people believe the internet is making us stupid is stupidity in and of itself. The internet is simply changing the way we process information. Reading on the internet is different from reading a physical text, or from writing with a pen, but that doesn't mean that it is any less conducive to learning. In fact I think that because of internet reserach and reading people have learned to process information at a much quicker pace because internet information is thrown at you at a much quicker pace. If people are able to process information quicker because of internet reading I don't understand why they can't do the same with books. In the Google article Dr. Bruce Friedman M.D. writes, "I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print." He claims that his thinking has taken on a "staccato" quality due to the way he quickly scans short passages online. While this may be true, I think this way of thinking can be developed from reading books as well. Who is to say that this "staccato" thinking is attributed simply to internet reading? Perhaps it came from reading short excerpts from medical articles, small chapters from medical journals, and a number of possible other places. It's unfortunate that Dr. Friedman is no longer able to read War and Peace, but i don't know many people that read that for a leisurly good time anyway.
Like I mentioned earlier the internet is not making us any more or less intelligent, it is simply changing the way we look at written words. Much like the changes brought about from orality to written word, the switch from written word to internet reading is changing the way our brain looks at things. I think that because of internet reading I have become a faster reader and my brain is able to reccognize words more quickly. I can glance at a page of text and find some meaning just by lightly scanning the page because my brain is able to pick up key words so i can understand the main points of the text. I don't always read like this because truthfully that isn't reading, it's skimming, but i think that the fact that my brain has been taught to skim whether it be from internet reading, reading bill boards as a drive down 94, or from reading actual physical texts, is a useful and efficient tool to have.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I kind of thought that stuff about not being able to concentrate on a long work was strange, and dare I say, stupid? I love reading books and if I want to read something I can sit for hours completely absorbed in it. I agree that being able to skim something for relevant information is also a good quality to develop. But as you said, that is not reading. That is quickly gleaning relevant information, while weeding out stuff that you find unnecessary excess.
ReplyDeleteI think it really depends on what your purposes for reading are, and how interested you are in the subject.
I disagree with you, for the most part, entirely, because the foundation of your argument is built on the--shoddy--assertion that there is a correlation between being able to read fast, and higher intelligence.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite skateboarding magazines--one with a more artistic, scholarly, and philosophic bent--used to have a t-shirt that said something like, skate fast, read slow, and I agree. In the trashy, disposable, fast-food culture of instant-gratification that we are all confined by, doing things quick--I guess--is fine, but when it comes down to ACTUALLY and GENUINELY learning (meaning retaining, processing, and understanding things we encounter), who would possibly want to turn things into one big manic rush, or a trip to the fast-food take-out line?
That is why the average kook walking around, on the rare occasion he or she even attempts to talk intelligently or thoughtfully about something important in the world (not that this occurs often), has nothing more dependable to cite than the hollow reporting of a local news station, decorated by their own opinions, but in "academia" one is actually bound to having to be able to prove what they say, and the sources they provide must be accountable for the validity of what they state. In other words, information must be thoroughly supported and understood, not just cognitive fast-food.
It is odd to me that you include being able to read billboards as "a useful and efficient tool to have."
I can't get over the fact that Friedman blamed his inability to read anything at length on the Internet. Really now? This is what it has gotten to. We are not blaming our personal shortcomings on the Internet. The Internet, mind you, being something which we choose to use and for which we personally are responsible for how much time we spend on it. It is not as if someone is forcing us to spend hours on Facebook. As adults, we choose how we spend our time and if certain individuals want to spend this time stalking their friends online instead of reading a novel or focusing on more scholarly things, that's fine. Just do not blame the Internet for your habits. Let's pretend that we all have some level of self control, shall we?
ReplyDeleteI think the use of the Internet is not necessarily making us stupider, but it is making us more dependent, which may ultimately lead to a lazy mind. But isn't laziness/ease of living something most people aspire to? As human beings we want to make everything faster and easier, hence the invention of fire, the oven, the toaster oven - all used to speed up cooking food. So it naturally leads that we want to be able to access information faster and easier. Dictionaries no longer do - it's now dictionary.com. Still, it doesn't necessarily mean we'll be stupider, just different.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree in the sense that we are becoming more and more dependent on the internet. I don't even think I own a real dictionary anymore, but I am a frequent user of dictionary.com. Like I mentioned above the internet does not necessarily make us more stupid, instead it is just a faster and easier way to access information and our brains are adapting to this new way of learning. I think internet learning can be very efficient if we are able to maintain our ability to read physical texts while also using the new ways of virtual learning.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I appreciate the value and worth of books, I prefer to read online. Actually, I prefer a book...or I prefer to print what I'm reading. I don't know anymore! I do enjoy reading books and being able to highlight and write on my pages but I can do the same thing with printing off of the computer. Honestly, it seems like being a student enables me to utilize and maximize all of my resources as opposed to being restricted to books only and I don't see anything wrong with that. I am not againgst high usage of the internet but I am against ignorance. (such as my younger cousin who has never heard of the dewey decimal system)
ReplyDeleteSkimming texts takes away from the essence of the text. What our mind links as important is possibly not what the writer/author was truly conveying. I'm not quite sure how you're relating the capability of reading billboards while driving to your case and point. If it's multitasking then I do at least understand that.
"That is why the average kook walking around, on the rare occasion he or she even attempts to talk intelligently or thoughtfully about something important in the world (not that this occurs often), has nothing more dependable to cite than the hollow reporting of a local news station, decorated by their own opinions..."
ReplyDeleteI'm laughing hysterically over here because we must be running into the same "kook." And it is not just the local news, it is the history channel, the national geographic channel or whatever other channel that some people consume as absolute knowledge. Anyways, lets not forget that most of us if not all are English majors in this class. We made that choice because on one level or another we value the concept this whole class is based on, "THE BOOK." We are also students on one level or another and to different degrees, we value knowledge and education. Earlier this semester, I spent eleven straight hours reading Edith Wharton's, "The House of Mirth" for another class. Part of it was because I procrastinated and waited to the last day before the reading was due, part of it was because I had to, and yet another reason was because I was enjoying it. I know people that can easily spend eleven or more hours playing video games and yet others that have spend in upward of 35 hours at a poker table. I have a friend who didn't graduate high school and who claims to have never read a book, yet I proudly call him a friend. He may not be the most intellectual person in my life but he is a loyal and good friend, an excellent father, a good provider, and in his own right he lives a very fulfilling life. I can never live his life and he probably can never live mine yet we can find other interests that we can agree on. We are fortunate enough to be doing something that not only do we enjoy but also has immeasurable benefits. So, regardless of reading or skimming a piece of literature, as English majors and students, if push came to shove I'm sure we can read critically if we need to and that cannot be said for most people.