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.
No comments:
Post a Comment