The Church of Google

While I agree that Google has had a large impact the internet as we know it today, I can’t help but be a bit skeptical. This skepticism mostly stems from questioning the power of a company that has a potential monopoly.  Google has become such a stronghold on the internet.  It is virtually impossible to go on a website and not see a Google logo.  The word “Google” has even become a synonym of searching for something.  When someone doesn’t know certain information, they are often told to “Google” their question.  Now not only is Google a method of searching, but it means searching.  This brings me back to my original skepticism: what does this say about the power of Google?

            To answer Geoff’s second question, I’m not sure how to feel about Google’s goal to “synthesize everything”.  In many ways this makes me think that synthesis takes away the greatest aspect of the internet: different information.  Having the ability to search across different mediums throughout the world in one place is what makes the internet special.  Furthermore, what gives Google the credibility to make such decisions necessary to synthesize data?  Wouldn’t that just make every source the same source?  This allows Google to input their own agenda in the information that they change and/or leave the same.  Regardless of whether or not I agree with the values of this company, I’m relatively sure that I disagree with their control over internet information.  Wasn't the original purpose of Google to be a search engine?  I don’t think information synthesizer is part of that. 

Reaction to The Church of Google

In my opinion, Google is one of the most important features of the internet. With the power to "Google" something, one can search through millions of sites and archives to find exactly what information they need in a matter of a little more than a second. This is absolutely extraordinary to think about that we can have any information we need about anything in a matter of minutes, or even less. Google is now even more important than it was years ago because the power of the search engine has systematically increased and the base has broadened, giving it an advantage over the less powerful search engines.
Giving Google such power over what people can find though, gives it a lot of power. Let's say that Google does not find a certain piece of information to be worthy of including it in a search result, it can omit that information. If Google should ever decide to do something like that, the public will most likely never know because they will have a difficult time trying to find it on the internet without Google.
In order to keep the competitive edge over other search engines such as Yahoo!, Ask Jeeves, Bing, and Dogpile, Google offers complimentary services, such as giving users related searches, using their website to play games (such as Pac-Man), compiling user's preferences into home pages, and adding links to other organizations, such as the news. Google will not stop doing this, even if it depletes some money from profits, because Google's features is what separates it from other search engines. As long as Google can keep users interested, it will be guaranteed success.
Artificial Intelligence is related to Google because it relies on human programming to have computers do the work. Google would be interested in AI because it shows an opportunity to increase both the quality of its service and profits. When a user types a search into Google, a human does not compile the results for the user, a computer finds results that pertain to the keywords all over the internet. If Google can master AI and somehow link it to their services, Google's already success can reach even higher.

The Church of Google

In Carr's somewhat alarmingly named chapter "The Church of Google" he characterizes the internet behemoth both positively and negatively. First he praises its importance to the internet as our primary means of navigating the billions of webpages. However, he also blames Google as purveyors of distraction, who profit off of your every click away from a concentration.

1)Do you agree with Carr about Google's importance to the internet? There were other search engines before it, and others since (like Bing). Is Google as important now as it was in the early 00s before the internet truly became a mass media?
2)What do you think of Google's goal to "systematize everything" and synthesize as much data as possible and make it widely available? Can we trust Google? Do you think it's safe for one company to control so much data (books, internet searches, video), especially if it calls itself a "moral force"?
3)Carr describes how Google operates some of its "complements" at a loss, like Youtube which lost between $200 and $500 million dollars last year, in order to collect data from its users. Despite these losses, Google is still an extremely profitable company. What do you think could cause it to stop expanding or to stop offering complementary services? What could stop Google at this point?
4)How does Carr's description of Artificial Intelligence fit into his book? We can see how it links to Google, which is interested in AI, but what point does Carr want to make by describing the power of AI and its differences from actual human thought?

Questions for The Church of Google

Some questions for thought:

Carr mentions that Taylorism is based on six assumptions:

1)      That the primary, if not the only, goal of human labor and thought is efficiency.

2)      That technical calculation is in all respects superior to human judgment.

3)      That human judgment cannot be trusted, because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity.

4)      That subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking.

5)      That what cannot be measured either does not exist or is of no value.

6)      That the affairs of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts.

Do you feel that these six aspects of Taylorism are correct, or are they missing/overlooking something?  Also, do you believe that these aspects of Taylorism can be found in internet companies like Google, as Carr does?  Lastly, Carr says that Google is doing for the mind what Taylor did for the hand.  Do you feel that this is true?  Have we, through using Google, become “automatons” following identical online procedures and habits?  If we have, is this a good change or a bad change (or maybe even a little of each)?

Carr also discusses the issues surrounding Google Book Search, namely that he feels the search “dismembers” books, ruining the cohesion and linearity of the text, all while placing other links, tabs, and ads nearby to distract “the reader’s fragmented attention.”  Does Carr have a point, or is he overly concerned without a need to be?

E-Books and the kindle

The kindle is a new fascination among readers because it is one compact device that holds many books. Also, it has the power to enable the user to click on and follow hyperlinks. These hyperlinks lead to definitions for words or other articles. I feel that these hyperlinks are nothing but helpful to the reader. If the reader does not understand something, they can simply click on the hyperlink and be led to a place where they could find out what they need. If they do not need to understand anything, and is compelled by what they are reading, I see no reason that the reader would want to interrupt their activity to click on a hyperlink. It is true that this medium allows the user to distract themselves if necessary, but the choice is a huge part of the reason it is a concern. The reader must choose to stop what they are doing to click a hyperlink, but what would interest the reader in doing so if they are enjoying themselves reading their book.
The paper community is worried its era of dominance has come to an end. Very soon it will. Because most media are rushing to an electronic format rather than physical, all paper materials will cease to exist due to the convenience of electronic media. Why should a user buy 10 physical books from a store, while they can go online and download it to their kindle for a cheaper price? Physical books still have some years left in their time of rule, but their sales will decrease as the number of downloads increase. They will indeed be missed, but only to be replaced by something more convenient and cost effective.

What's to become of the book?

I personally found the ending paragraphs of Chapter 6 of The Shallows to be very profound and thought provoking. The entire chapter addresses the issue about what is to become of the book in our now Internet and multi-tasking obsessed society. I really find this topic interesting because I myself love to read books; there is something really special to me about being able to curl up on a couch with a blanket and read a novel. I often find that I am completely absorbed and I lose track of time while getting to know the characters and the plot of the story. It also seemed really intriguing to me when Carr discusses the introduction of the e-book. This aspect was especially interesting to me because I am currently reading the e-book version of The Shallows on the Kindle. Carr talks about how the Kindle allows for a more distracted read because of the hyperlinks and wireless internet availability-- I however find that if I am truly interested in what I am reading I won't even notice the hyperlinks, and if I do I won't have the desire to click on them and navigate away from the text. I have read quite a few books on the Kindle, and if I am interested in what I am reading I have to problem staying focused and in retrospect if I am reading an actual book that I find especially boring I will have a hard time focusing and staying connected with that version of the text.
My questions for you are:
Do you believe that it is the medium of a text that influences how you are reading or the actual content of the text itself?
Do you think that the hyperlinks are distracting in a negative way or could they also be seen as positive in the way that they allow for a larger field of knowledge and opinions and real life connections to the text?
Do you believe that books will become "momentos of how reading used to be" or do you think they will continue in popularity as this same negative forecast has been predicted for them in the past?

First, I think our education system has yet to fully adapt to the so-called distracted state that technology media has brought about. My little sister is in third grade and she still brings home books for reading and they still have Sustained Silent Reading for half an hour in her class. Moving up to high school, I feel as though there has been an increase in the need for silent reading for intellectual growth because Advanced Placement courses are becoming more popular. In those courses, high school students take on the work load of a college student, with sustained reading in textbooks being a primary way in which the students learn in the class. And we all know how much reading we do (or are supposed to do) for our classes as college students. Essentially, reading for an extended period of time in order to gathering information and insight is still a central practice in our education system, which, mostly likely, will be here to stay for a while. We have yet to have shorter class periods or readings in shallow, bullet-pointed form; however, I do feel that the emphasis on more interactivity in classrooms and less lecture is the educational system’s way of slowly and begrudgingly giving in a little to our distracted minds. Yet, other than that, I don’t see how the educational system is working with our shortened attention spans, if anything, it’s the only think keeping sustained reading and thought alive.

            Furthermore, I’m not sure what I think about the educational system becoming as disjoined as our search for knowledge on the internet. Like I said before, I feel like the educational system is the one of the only institutions keeping extended reading and thought alive. Cornerstones of education and scholarship, such as the essay and personal research will still need to be written in order to people to fully understand complex topics and issues. Therefore, I don’t think this linear form of thinking will ever go away. Yet, if the educational system is one of the basic institutions were we learn about and understand the world, will all sustained thought be lost if the educational system does not teach it? And does that even matter? I know Carr is arguing that yes, it does matter and I do find that I agree with him on several points; however, as we’ve talked about in class, I am hesitant to say this is a bad thing. I think distracted ways of thinking are just too new for us to know how to deal with them. 

Questions on The Deepening Page

Carr talks about the Deepening Page and this idea that over time "silent reading" became imbedded in our way of acquiring knowledge or exercising our minds.  It was a way that the mind could grow and imagine and focus withoutout being distracted. "The nature of education and scholarship changed, as universities began to stress private reading as an essential complement to to classroom lectures".  However, Carr also talks about how naturally our brains, just as many other mammals on this planet, are naturally wired to be predispositioned to shift our gaze, and hence oyr attention, from one object to another, and that the new media embraces this natural shifting of attention that our brain favors.  My question is, do you think that our education system ultimately has adapted to this change in media and technology or not? Also, do you think that our education system adapting to a change in media and technology and straying from the idea of "silence reading" and lecture based education is a good thing?

Convergence of Media

I do not think that the convergence of media onto one medium is a bad thing at all. I do not believe that this convergence is making us less intelligent either. Throughout history, people have always sought to make technologies readily available to them. Examples of this would be buying a television set for the family, gathering around the radio, opening up libraries, and reading newspapers. Radio and television used to be purely entertainment technologies, until news stations opened up on both of those mediums. Though smaller than the internet, news companies opening up on those mediums is a form of convergence.

The only difference between then and today, is that now all of our media is in one place. This one place is the internet. Society has never been able to access this much information so fast and easily, so naturally more and more people switch to this new converged form of media. Unfortunately, because of this other mediums are suffering if they are separated from the internet. Aside from users listening to the radio in cars, it is rare to see them listen to it in their homes when they can pull up Youtube.com on their laptops and play whatever song they want from their iTunes or other media player. It is unfortunate that many media will soon become relics like the home radio, libraries, and newspapers, but it is a sign of progress that they are replaced by more encompassing media. The internet will eventually take over television as well, but its decline will be more slow than the more outdated media such as the internet or the radio.

Just give it time

I do think that the convergence of all previous media (print, television, radio, etc) is natural progression considering the value our society places on speed, control, convenience and progression itself. Clearly, making a “one-stop-shop” technology, like the internet, means that people can spend less time and less money to gather all the information and entertainment that they need. To me, this seems like a logical step. However, I do feel a little upset over the fact that the publishing industry (including newspapers, magazine and books) is having a harder time staying alive in this increasingly digital age. I love holding a book, turning the pages and cracking the spine to the point where just one glance tells you that it’s a well loved book. I hate reading off the computer; I find it harder to grasp the information I’m reading, I read slower, my eyes start to hurt after a while and I hate having to scroll instead of turning a page. Also, I feel like I’m more impatient when I’m reading on the computer. Maybe my brain has changed to the point where if I’m on the computer, it triggers the need to jump from blub to blub, so that I can’t concentrate as well looking at a screen, which would be why I feel like I read slower. My mind still wanders when I’m reading a book (if I’m uninterested in it), but I still feel that it’s a quicker read.

            Now, I’m not entirely sure that this is detrimental. Maybe my brain hasn’t fully adapted to reading longer articles online (which I print out if they’re that long), which is why it seems like moving printed text online is detrimental to my ability to my comprehension level. I am hesitant to say this mass convergence is bad. It’s just different, and change is hard for humans to cope with as we are very much animals of routine. I feel that once this new technology has been around for a while and humans have had the chance to adapt (maybe by the time of our children or grandchildren) we will be better able to deal with the instant gratification of the internet and can then move on to better follow in-depth concepts on the internet.  Therefore, we are not less intelligent—we still have the ability to grasp deep concepts—it’s just that the medium has thrown us for a loop and our brains need a chance to sort it all out. 

Questions for The Shallows

In Chapter 5, Carr talks about how previously, before the computer and internet, technologies progress down different paths. Paper media was restricted to using mostly word, TV's mostly images, and radios mostly sound. Now, with the computer and internet, all of these medias are progressing and beginning to merge together. You can find an "Official Website" for almost any newspaper, TV Channel or show, or radio station. All of these medias not only have websites giving information, but they broadcast their shows (whether it is music or an episode of The Office, for example) and the news publishes print, video, and picture news through their websites.

How does this make you feel? Do you feel as if this is detrimental to us in that our brains need information and instant gratification? Or, do you feel this is just another normal part of the pattern of new technologies that has dated back thousands of years? Does it make us any less intelligent and unable to grasp information in depth?

positive or negative change?

       I think some of the points brought up are very interesting.  Although I completely agree that we see a change in the way we think, I'm not sure if this is a negative change.  It just seems that the way we think and process information is just different than it used to be.  One example that Carr mentions is his inability to read at great length without being distracted.  He says that he has developed a tendency to skim through paragraphs of information to find the most important points.  This change can have a strong linkage to internet use, however I don't think that conclusion can be 100% validated.
       Carr quotes David Sarnoff, pioneer of radio at RCA and television at NBS.  Sarnoff says, "We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them.  The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value." (pp. 3).  This belief strongly aligns with the theory of Cultural Determinism.  I tend to agree with this belief because I think that technologies themselves to not create change.  The way we use them and the extent to which we use them is what causes a change.
       Ultimately, it appears that there have been changes in our society and the way we think.  It most certainly can be seen in our ability to quickly access information.  This has made certain chores much easier.  For example, many now simply look up book summaries in lieu of reading the entire text.  Such decisions can have effects on our reading because people may only need to search for just enough information to complete a necessary assignment. Whether these effects are positive or negative still remains the question.

Carr is quite interesting...

Being that Carr went to Dartmouth for English and from what I have read does not have a neuroscience background, I am slightly more skeptical to believe his theories whole-heartedly. However, I do see the truth in them. From what I remember of Neuro.120 with Dr. Joel Bish, Carr’s descriptions of neuroplasticity and how it develops could definitely change the way we think with the repeated use of a certain mode of thought. Because we can change the connections in our brain, train them to fire in certain patterns, it is hard to argue against Carr using neuoplasticity as proof that we will be able to think associatively. The more we use that train of thought, the more we are habituated into that train of thought, meaning that old thoughts patterns may diminish in some form. In other words, I do think that it is possible for us to become proficient in thinking associatively; however, I am not ready to take that as a complete fact.

            I’m not sure how we’re going to fare in the future with this associative way of thinking. In all honesty, I don’t think it’s going to do us much good. We need to be able to plan long term and fully think through plans and their implications; however, if we do not have the ability to fully think about one topic for an extended period of time, our decisions and actions will be very in the moment without much thought. Now of course this is extreme, but I do think that linear thought is important to get things done and get them done right.

At the same time, I don’t think we can avoid using the internet, meaning that we cannot avoid developing our associative thought process. Therefore, I think that we need the education system to push linear forms of thought, like reading novels, just as much as they push the technological advances in education. I think both thought processes are useful in different ways and both should be developed in a type of balance with each other—not that we should think one way or the other. 

The Way we Think Today--Good, Bad, or just Different?

Similar to what Sean has referred to in his blog, there is evidence that the internet has been transforming the way we think, transgressing from a linear way of thought to a more staccato-like preference in the way we collect and absorb information.  However, on page 3, Carr acknowledges that McLuhan’s reason for this change in our thought process is not as much a result of the medium’s content as it is a byproduct of the medium itself.

Carr says, “As our window onto the world, and onto ourselves, a popular medium molds what we see and how we see it—and eventually, if we use it enough, it changes who we are, as individuals and as a society.”

For instance, in Carr’s discussion of Scott Karp, a lit major in college, he focuses on Karp’s more recent loss of interest in reading books.  Instead, Karp now does all of his readings on the web.  Furthermore, Bruce Friedman admits that he can no longer read and absorb more than 3 or 4 paragraphs at a time in its entirety.

What do you think of these changes?  How are they reinforced in our culture and do you think their potentially unrealized effects are good or bad?  What have we gained and/or lost as a result of such changes? 

Maybe it is important to read each page of say Pride and Prejudice.  Or perhaps it is simply good enough to understand the gist of the plot either by skimming or using some form of Sparknotes.  What do you think? 

Is the internet dumbing us down, or simply changing the way we think?

The point that Carr seems to be making so far is that the repeated heavy use of the internet is rewiring our brains, decreasing our ability to think linearly or in depth for extended periods of time, just as the monkey's brains were rewired when given different stimulus from the nerve cells in their hands.

Do you think that it is possible that our brains will rewire themselves to become just as proficient at thinking associatevely as they are linearly?

Will a generation raised with the internet fare well in the future, or is the ability to think linearly superior?

Are the problems people are encountering with decreased ability to think linearly a result of these changes being reported and studied by people who were raised to think linearly and are having problems adapting to a more associative style?

Finally, if it turns out that the associative, sporatic style of thinking cultivated by internet use is impacting our ability to think well, what can we do to avoid falling into that trap given the internet's utility, endurance, and widespread use?

Oh hey there cognitive surplus!

I’m going to address the first question posted under the heading, "Questions for 11/02."  I feel as if one of the things that Shirkey is missing when he states that free time and a good media landscape are needed for cognitive surplus is availability. Cognitive surplus is only possible for those who have access to computers and the internet. I know we have talked about this a decent amount of times in class; however, I feel it’s important to point it out because cognitive surplus isn't free to everyone then, like Shirkey makes it seem. Cognitive surplus is bought and sold to the people who can afford it and countries that can afford it, which means that only the upper classes of world can participate in this use of cognitive surplus. Therefore, some dire issues of the lower classes in our world need this cognitive surplus to bring about change, but because they don’t have access, they must wait for a citizen who does have that access to care and utilize their cognitive surplus. This doesn’t mean that cognitive surplus has any less power; it just means that those who create and share and consume on the internet are a select group of people because of differing social classes and their privileges.

I do, however, believe that cognitive surplus has the ability to create change, that is, once the world has adapted to using weak ties to collaborate and organize. I think it is possible that when this next generation reaches adulthood, they will be more prepared to utilize cognitive surplus because they have been the creators and sharers of it since their childhood. They will have also been the consumers of it since childhood, meaning that they will be more open to being emotionally involved and moved to action through the use of the internet, weak ties and cognitive surplus. We already see examples of cognitive surplus working to our advantage today, such as Shirkey’s example of the Kenyan presidential election and Ushahidi. If it has begun to be effective today, I think it is capable of evolving to be more effective tomorrow with the global culture we are currently building. 

11/02 -BWright

1) Is Shirky's vision of a communal transformation of society a practical one?

2) How would this society be different from current society, and what aspects would have to change?

3) How does Shirky use his idea of a "transformed media landscape" to empower individuals and strengthen human agency?