• English Debate Class
  • J. Schmitz
  • 16.03.2023
  • Englisch
  • 10
Um die Lizenzinformationen zu sehen, klicken Sie bitte den gewünschten Inhalt an.

Is the In­ter­net Ma­king us Stu­pid?

1
Read the ar­ti­cle pro­vi­ded, trans­la­te any words you might not know.
2
Give a brief out­line of the major issue sta­ted in the ar­ti­cle.

In a 2008 ar­ti­cle for The At­lan­tic, Ni­cho­las Carr asked, “Is  Goog­le Ma­king Us Stu­pid?” Carr argued that the In­ter­net as a whole, not  just Goog­le, has been “chip­ping away [at his] ca­pa­ci­ty for  con­cen­tra­ti­on and con­tem­pla­ti­on.” He was con­cer­ned that the In­ter­net was  “re­pro­gramming us.” [1]

Howe­ver, Carr also noted that we should “be skep­ti­cal of [his]  skep­ti­cism,” be­cau­se maybe he’s “just a wor­ry­wart.” He ex­p­lai­ned, “Just  as there’s a ten­den­cy to glo­ri­fy tech­no­lo­gi­cal pro­gress, there’s a  coun­ter­ten­den­cy to ex­pect the worst of every new tool or ma­chi­ne.” [1]

The ar­ti­cle, and Carr’s sub­se­quent book, The Shal­lows: What the In­ter­net Is Doing to Our Brains  (2010, re­vi­sed in 2020), igni­ted a con­ti­nuing de­ba­te on and off the In­ter­net about how the me­di­um is chan­ging the ways we think, how we in­ter­act with text and each other, and the very fa­bric of so­cie­ty as a  whole. [1]

Pro­Con asked rea­ders their thoughts on how the In­ter­net af­fec­ts their  brains and whe­ther on­line in­for­ma­ti­on is re­lia­ble and  trust­wor­thy. While 52.7% agreed or stron­gly agreed that being on the  In­ter­net has cau­sed a de­cli­ne in their at­ten­ti­on span and abi­li­ty to  con­cen­tra­te, only 21.5% thought the In­ter­net cau­sed them to lose the  abi­li­ty to per­form simp­le tasks like rea­ding a map. [41]

Only 18% be­lie­ved on­line in­for­ma­ti­on was true. Ne­ar­ly 60% ad­mit­ted  dif­fi­cu­l­ty in de­ter­mi­ning if in­for­ma­ti­on on­line was truth­ful. And 77%  de­si­red a more ef­fec­ti­ve way of ma­na­ging and fil­te­ring in­for­ma­ti­on on  the In­ter­net to dif­fe­ren­tia­te bet­ween fact, opi­ni­on, and overt  dis­in­for­ma­ti­on. [41]

Use­ful Phra­ses in a Dis­cus­sion

Star­ting the dis­cus­sion:

Let's start by tal­king about...

I'd like to dis­cuss...

Can we talk about...?

I want to share my thoughts on...

In­tro­du­cing the topic:

The topic I want to dis­cuss is...

I'd like to talk about...

This topic is im­portant be­cau­se...



Gi­ving your own opi­ni­on:

In my opi­ni­on...

From my point of view...

I be­lie­ve that...

It seems to me that...



Gi­ving rea­sons:

The rea­son why I think this is be­cau­se...

The evi­dence shows that...

Based on my ex­pe­ri­ence...

If you look at the facts...



Agre­e­ing:

I com­ple­te­ly agree with you.

I see your point of view.

That's a valid point.

I think we're on the same page.



Dis­agre­e­ing:

I re­spect­ful­ly dis­agree...

I can see where you're co­ming from, but...

I'm afraid I have to dis­agree...

I'm not sure I agree with that...

















Put­ting the op­po­si­ti­on down:

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that.

I'm afraid that's not a very con­vin­cing ar­gu­ment.

I'm not sure I un­der­stand your point of view.

I don't think that's a valid ar­gu­ment.



Sounding strong:

I stron­gly be­lie­ve that...

It's im­portant to con­sider...

I'm con­fi­dent that...

I'm con­vin­ced that...



Get­ting yours­elf heard:

Ex­cu­se me, can I add so­me­thing?

Can I in­ter­ject for a mo­ment?

I'd like to share my thoughts on this topic.

May I speak?



Buy­ing time:

That's an in­te­resting ques­ti­on. Let me think for a mo­ment.

I need to con­sider that for a mo­ment.

I'm not quite sure. Let me gather my thoughts.

That's a tough ques­ti­on. Can I come back to you on that?



Loo­king for a com­pro­mi­se:

Is there a way we can find a midd­le ground?

Can we find a com­pro­mi­se?

Let's try to find a so­lu­ti­on that works for ever­yo­ne.

Can we agree to dis­agree?



Con­clu­ding the de­ba­te:

In con­clu­si­on, I be­lie­ve that...

To sum up, we've dis­cus­sed...

Over­all, I think we've made some good points.

Thank you for the dis­cus­sion.

Dis­cus­sion Pre­pa­ra­ti­on

Du­ring the next few ses­si­ons, we will pre­pa­re and then hold a de­ba­te and dis­cuss whe­ther the in­ter­net makes us stu­pid. You are sor­ted into groups, which form your de­ba­te teams, and as­si­gned a po­si­ti­on (pro or con­tra) and are given three texts that give you fod­der for ar­gu­ments.

For each ar­gu­ment pro­vi­ded, work through the fol­lo­wing steps:

1
Read the ar­gu­ment ca­re­ful­ly and sum­ma­ri­ze the main idea in your own words.
  • Take your time in rea­ding and dis­cus­sing the ar­gu­ments, make mind maps to sum­ma­ri­se im­portant aspec­ts, or use vi­sua­li­sa­ti­on to make sure you un­der­stand the logic.
2
Think of at least three pieces of evi­dence that sup­port this ar­gu­ment.
  • Some ar­gu­ments may al­rea­dy offer evi­dence, if not, try to find ex­amp­les and re­mem­ber the stron­gest to use them later.
3
Dis­cuss po­ten­ti­al coun­ter­ar­gu­ments that could be made again­st this ar­gu­ment and come up with re­spon­ses.
  • The op­po­sing side will con­sider your points as well, make sure that you are pre­pa­red to deal with that.

Group A: Pro-​Arguments

1

The speed and ubi­qui­ty of the In­ter­net is dif­fe­rent from pre­vious breakthrough tech­no­lo­gies and is re­pro­gramming our brains for the worse.

The In­ter­net has re­du­ced our abi­li­ty to focus; chan­ged how our me­mo­ry works; pro­mo­ted skim­ming text over deep, cri­ti­cal rea­ding; and chan­ged how we in­ter­act with peo­ple. In the 2020 up­date to The Shal­lows: What the In­ter­net Is Doing to Our Brains, Ni­cho­las Carr sum­ma­ri­zed:

"It takes pa­ti­ence and con­cen­tra­ti­on to eva­lua­te new in­for­ma­ti­on—to gauge its ac­cu­ra­cy, to weigh its re­le­van­ce and worth, to put it into con­text—and the In­ter­net, by de­sign, sub­verts pa­ti­ence and con­cen­tra­ti­on. When the brain is over­loa­ded by sti­mu­li, as it usual­ly is when we’re pee­ring into a network-​connected com­pu­ter screen, at­ten­ti­on splin­ters, thin­king be­co­mes su­per­fi­cial, and me­mo­ry suf­fers. We be­co­me less re­flec­ti­ve and more im­pul­si­ve. Far from enhan­cing human in­tel­li­gence, I argue, the In­ter­net de­gra­des it.” 2

A 2019 study found that the In­ter­net "can pro­du­ce both acute and sus­tained al­tera­ti­ons” in three areas:

''a) at­ten­tio­nal ca­pa­ci­ties, as the con­stant­ly evol­ving stream of on­line in­for­ma­ti­on en­cou­ra­ges our di­vi­ded at­ten­ti­on across mul­ti­ple media sources, at the ex­pen­se of sus­tained con­cen­tra­ti­on; b) me­mo­ry pro­ces­ses, as this vast and ubi­qui­tous source of on­line in­for­ma­ti­on be­gins to shift the way we re­trie­ve, store, and even value know­ledge; and c) so­cial co­gni­ti­on, as the abi­li­ty for on­line so­cial set­tings to re­sem­ble and evoke real‐world so­cial pro­ces­ses crea­tes a new in­ter­play bet­ween the In­ter­net and our so­cial lives, in­clu­ding our self‐con­cepts and self‐es­teem.” 3

Mo­reo­ver, stu­dies have found that peo­ple rea­ding di­gi­tal text skim more and re­tain less in­for­ma­ti­on than those rea­ding text prin­ted on paper. Also the ef­fec­ts of di­gi­tal rea­ding span from less rea­ding com­pre­hen­si­on to less in-​depth tex­tu­al ana­ly­sis to less em­pa­thy for others. 4

Rea­ding less cri­ti­cal­ly re­sults in low Eng­lish gra­des and in rea­ders be­lie­ving and sha­ring false in­for­ma­ti­on, as well as mi­sun­derstan­ding po­ten­ti­al­ly im­portant do­cu­ments such as con­trac­ts and voter re­fe­ren­dums. 4

Bon­nie Kris­ti­an, Con­tri­bu­ting Edi­tor at The Week, also noted the In­ter­net’s de­struc­tion of in­ter­per­so­nal re­la­ti­on­ships, es­pe­cial­ly du­ring the COVID-​19 pan­de­mic: Many peo­ple have

''a lack of in­ti­ma­te fri­end­ships and hob­by­ist com­mu­ni­ties. In the ab­sence of that emo­tio­nal con­nec­tion and heal­t­hy re­crea­tio­nal time use, this media en­ga­ge­ment can be­co­me a bad sub­sti­tu­te. The memes be­co­me the hobby. The Face­book bicke­ring sup­plants the re­la­ti­on­ships. And it’s all mo­ving so fast — tweet, video, meme, Tu­cker, tweet, video, meme, Mad­dow — the chan­ge goes un­no­ti­ced. The brain breaks.” 5

Be­cau­se the In­ter­net tou­ch­es ne­ar­ly ever­ything we do now, the ways our brains pro­cess in­for­ma­ti­on is chan­ging to ac­com­mo­da­te and adapt to the fast, surface-​level, dis­tr­ac­ting na­tu­re of the In­ter­net, to the de­tri­ment of our­sel­ves and so­cie­ty.

ad­ap­ted from Pro­Con

The In­ter­net has re­du­ced our abi­li­ty to focus; chan­ged how our me­mo­ry works; pro­mo­ted skim­ming text over deep, cri­ti­cal rea­ding; and chan­ged how we in­ter­act with peo­ple. In the 2020 up­date to The Shal­lows: What the In­ter­net Is Doing to Our Brains, Ni­cho­las Carr sum­ma­ri­zed:

"It takes pa­ti­ence and con­cen­tra­ti­on to eva­lua­te new in­for­ma­ti­on—to gauge its ac­cu­ra­cy, to weigh its re­le­van­ce and worth, to put it into con­text—and the In­ter­net, by de­sign, sub­verts pa­ti­ence and con­cen­tra­ti­on. When the brain is over­loa­ded by sti­mu­li, as it usual­ly is when we’re pee­ring into a network-​connected com­pu­ter screen, at­ten­ti­on splin­ters, thin­king be­co­mes su­per­fi­cial, and me­mo­ry suf­fers. We be­co­me less re­flec­ti­ve and more im­pul­si­ve. Far from enhan­cing human in­tel­li­gence, I argue, the In­ter­net de­gra­des it.” 2

A 2019 study found that the In­ter­net "can pro­du­ce both acute and sus­tained al­tera­ti­ons” in three areas:

''a) at­ten­tio­nal ca­pa­ci­ties, as the con­stant­ly evol­ving stream of on­line in­for­ma­ti­on en­cou­ra­ges our di­vi­ded at­ten­ti­on across mul­ti­ple media sources, at the ex­pen­se of sus­tained con­cen­tra­ti­on; b) me­mo­ry pro­ces­ses, as this vast and ubi­qui­tous source of on­line in­for­ma­ti­on be­gins to shift the way we re­trie­ve, store, and even value know­ledge; and c) so­cial co­gni­ti­on, as the abi­li­ty for on­line so­cial set­tings to re­sem­ble and evoke real‐world so­cial pro­ces­ses crea­tes a new in­ter­play bet­ween the In­ter­net and our so­cial lives, in­clu­ding our self‐con­cepts and self‐es­teem.” 3

Mo­reo­ver, stu­dies have found that peo­ple rea­ding di­gi­tal text skim more and re­tain less in­for­ma­ti­on than those rea­ding text prin­ted on paper. Also the ef­fec­ts of di­gi­tal rea­ding span from less rea­ding com­pre­hen­si­on to less in-​depth tex­tu­al ana­ly­sis to less em­pa­thy for others. 4

Rea­ding less cri­ti­cal­ly re­sults in low Eng­lish gra­des and in rea­ders be­lie­ving and sha­ring false in­for­ma­ti­on, as well as mi­sun­derstan­ding po­ten­ti­al­ly im­portant do­cu­ments such as con­trac­ts and voter re­fe­ren­dums. 4

Bon­nie Kris­ti­an, Con­tri­bu­ting Edi­tor at The Week, also noted the In­ter­net’s de­struc­tion of in­ter­per­so­nal re­la­ti­on­ships, es­pe­cial­ly du­ring the COVID-​19 pan­de­mic: Many peo­ple have

''a lack of in­ti­ma­te fri­end­ships and hob­by­ist com­mu­ni­ties. In the ab­sence of that emo­tio­nal con­nec­tion and heal­t­hy re­crea­tio­nal time use, this media en­ga­ge­ment can be­co­me a bad sub­sti­tu­te. The memes be­co­me the hobby. The Face­book bicke­ring sup­plants the re­la­ti­on­ships. And it’s all mo­ving so fast — tweet, video, meme, Tu­cker, tweet, video, meme, Mad­dow — the chan­ge goes un­no­ti­ced. The brain breaks.” 5

Be­cau­se the In­ter­net tou­ch­es ne­ar­ly ever­ything we do now, the ways our brains pro­cess in­for­ma­ti­on is chan­ging to ac­com­mo­da­te and adapt to the fast, surface-​level, dis­tr­ac­ting na­tu­re of the In­ter­net, to the de­tri­ment of our­sel­ves and so­cie­ty.

1

The speed and ubi­qui­ty of the In­ter­net is dif­fe­rent from pre­vious breakthrough tech­no­lo­gies and is re­pro­gramming our brains for the worse.





5




10




15




20





25




30




ad­ap­ted from Pro­Con
ad­ap­ted from Pro­Con
2

IQ scores have been fal­ling for deca­des, coin­ci­ding with the rise of tech­no­lo­gies, in­clu­ding the In­ter­net.

For the ma­jo­ri­ty of the 20th cen­tu­ry, IQ scores rose an avera­ge of three points per deca­de, which is cal­led the Flynn ef­fect after James R. Flynn, a New Zea­land in­tel­li­gence re­se­ar­cher. Flynn be­lie­ved this con­stant in­cre­ase of IQ was re­la­ted to bet­ter nu­tri­ti­on and in­cre­ased ac­cess to edu­ca­ti­on. 6Howe­ver, a 2018 Nor­we­gi­an study found a re­ver­sal of the Flynn ef­fect, with a drop of 7 IQ points per ge­ne­ra­ti­on due to en­vi­ron­men­tal cau­ses such as the In­ter­net. As Evan Horo­witz, PhD, Di­rec­tor of Re­se­arch Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on at FCLT Glo­bal, sum­ma­ri­zed, Peo­ple are get­ting dum­ber. That’s not a judg­ment; it’s a glo­bal fact.” 6 7 8 9 10
James R Flynn, in a 2009 study, noted a drop in IQ points among Bri­tish male teen­agers, and hy­po­the­si­zed a cause:
It looks like there is so­me­thing scre­wy among Bri­tish teen­agers. What we know is that the youth cu­l­tu­re is more vi­sual­ly ori­en­ted around com­pu­ter games than they are in terms of rea­ding and hol­ding con­ver­sa­ti­ons.” 11

Further, the In­ter­net makes us be­lie­ve we can mul­ti­task, a skill sci­en­tists have found hu­mans do not have. Our func­tio­n­al IQ drops 10 points as we are dis­trac­ted by mul­ti­ple brow­ser tabs, email, a chat app, a video of pup­pies, and a text do­cu­ment, not to men­ti­on ever­ything open on our ta­blets and smart­phones, while lis­te­n­ing to smart spea­kers and wai­ting on a video call. 12 13 14

The loss of 10 IQ points is more than the ef­fect of a lost night’s sleep and more than dou­ble the ef­fect of smo­king ma­ri­jua­na. Not only can we not pro­cess all of these func­tions at once, but try­ing to do so de­gra­des our per­for­mance in each. Try­ing to com­ple­te two tasks at the same time takes three to four times as long, each switch bet­ween tasks adds 20 to 25 se­conds, and the ef­fect ma­gni­fies with each new task. The In­ter­net has de­s­troy­ed our abi­li­ty to focus on and sa­tis­fac­to­ri­ly com­ple­te one task at a time. 12 13 14

Pro­Con

For the ma­jo­ri­ty of the 20th cen­tu­ry, IQ scores rose an avera­ge of three points per deca­de, which is cal­led the Flynn ef­fect after James R. Flynn, a New Zea­land in­tel­li­gence re­se­ar­cher. Flynn be­lie­ved this con­stant in­cre­ase of IQ was re­la­ted to bet­ter nu­tri­ti­on and in­cre­ased ac­cess to edu­ca­ti­on. 6Howe­ver, a 2018 Nor­we­gi­an study found a re­ver­sal of the Flynn ef­fect, with a drop of 7 IQ points per ge­ne­ra­ti­on due to en­vi­ron­men­tal cau­ses such as the In­ter­net. As Evan Horo­witz, PhD, Di­rec­tor of Re­se­arch Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on at FCLT Glo­bal, sum­ma­ri­zed, Peo­ple are get­ting dum­ber. That’s not a judg­ment; it’s a glo­bal fact.” 6 7 8 9 10
James R Flynn, in a 2009 study, noted a drop in IQ points among Bri­tish male teen­agers, and hy­po­the­si­zed a cause:
It looks like there is so­me­thing scre­wy among Bri­tish teen­agers. What we know is that the youth cu­l­tu­re is more vi­sual­ly ori­en­ted around com­pu­ter games than they are in terms of rea­ding and hol­ding con­ver­sa­ti­ons.” 11

Further, the In­ter­net makes us be­lie­ve we can mul­ti­task, a skill sci­en­tists have found hu­mans do not have. Our func­tio­n­al IQ drops 10 points as we are dis­trac­ted by mul­ti­ple brow­ser tabs, email, a chat app, a video of pup­pies, and a text do­cu­ment, not to men­ti­on ever­ything open on our ta­blets and smart­phones, while lis­te­n­ing to smart spea­kers and wai­ting on a video call. 12 13 14

The loss of 10 IQ points is more than the ef­fect of a lost night’s sleep and more than dou­ble the ef­fect of smo­king ma­ri­jua­na. Not only can we not pro­cess all of these func­tions at once, but try­ing to do so de­gra­des our per­for­mance in each. Try­ing to com­ple­te two tasks at the same time takes three to four times as long, each switch bet­ween tasks adds 20 to 25 se­conds, and the ef­fect ma­gni­fies with each new task. The In­ter­net has de­s­troy­ed our abi­li­ty to focus on and sa­tis­fac­to­ri­ly com­ple­te one task at a time. 12 13 14

2

IQ scores have been fal­ling for deca­des, coin­ci­ding with the rise of tech­no­lo­gies, in­clu­ding the In­ter­net.





5




10




15




20



Pro­Con
Pro­Con
3

The In­ter­net is caus­ing us to lose the abi­li­ty to per­form simp­le tasks.

Hey, Alexa, turn on the bath­room light… play my fa­vo­ri­te music play­list, cook rice in the In­stant Pot… read me the news… what’s the weather today…”Hey, Siri, set a timer… call my sis­ter… get di­rec­tions to Los An­ge­les… what time is it in Tokyo… who stars in that TV show I like…”
While much of the tech­no­lo­gy is too new to have been thorough­ly re­se­ar­ched, we rely on the In­ter­net for ever­ything from email to see­ing who is at our front doors to loo­king up in­for­ma­ti­on, so much so that we for­get how to or never learn to com­ple­te simp­le tasks. And the ac­ces­si­bi­li­ty of in­for­ma­ti­on on­line makes us be­lie­ve we are smar­ter than we are. 40
In the 2018 elec­tion, Vir­gi­nia state of­fi­cials lear­ned that young adults in Ge­ne­ra­ti­on Z wan­ted to vote by mail but did not know where to buy stamps be­cau­se they are so used to com­mu­ni­ca­ting on­line ra­ther than via US mail. 15
We re­qui­re GPS maps nar­ra­ted by the voice of a di­gi­tal as­sistant to drive across the towns in which we have lived for years. Nora New­com­be, PhD, Pro­fes­sor of Psy­cho­lo­gy at Temp­le Uni­ver­si­ty, sta­ted, ''GPS de­vices cause our na­vi­ga­tio­nal skills to atro­phy, and there’s in­cre­a­sing evi­dence for it. The pro­blem is that you don’t see an over­view of the area, and where you are in re­la­ti­on to other things. You’re not ac­tive­ly na­vi­ga­ting — you’re just lis­te­n­ing to the voice.” 16
Mil­len­ni­als were more li­kely to use pre-​prepared foods, use the In­ter­net for re­cipes, and use a meal de­li­very ser­vice. They were least li­kely to know off­hand how to pre­pa­re la­sa­gna, carve a tur­key, or fry chi­cken, and fewer re­por­ted being a
good cook” than Ge­ne­ra­ti­on X or Baby Boo­mers, who were less li­kely to rely on the In­ter­net for coo­king tasks. 17 18

Using the In­ter­net to store in­for­ma­ti­on we pre­vious­ly would have com­mit­ted to me­mo­ry (how to roast a chi­cken, for ex­am­ple) is offloa­ding.” Ac­cor­ding to Ben­ja­min Storm, PhD, As­so­cia­te Pro­fes­sor of Psy­cho­lo­gy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Ca­li­for­nia at Santa Cruz, Offloa­ding robs you of the op­por­tu­ni­ty to de­ve­lop the long-​term know­ledge struc­tures that help you make crea­ti­ve con­nec­tions, have novel in­si­ghts and deepen your know­ledge.” 17

Pro­Con

Hey, Alexa, turn on the bath­room light… play my fa­vo­ri­te music play­list, cook rice in the In­stant Pot… read me the news… what’s the weather today…”Hey, Siri, set a timer… call my sis­ter… get di­rec­tions to Los An­ge­les… what time is it in Tokyo… who stars in that TV show I like…”
While much of the tech­no­lo­gy is too new to have been thorough­ly re­se­ar­ched, we rely on the In­ter­net for ever­ything from email to see­ing who is at our front doors to loo­king up in­for­ma­ti­on, so much so that we for­get how to or never learn to com­ple­te simp­le tasks. And the ac­ces­si­bi­li­ty of in­for­ma­ti­on on­line makes us be­lie­ve we are smar­ter than we are. 40
In the 2018 elec­tion, Vir­gi­nia state of­fi­cials lear­ned that young adults in Ge­ne­ra­ti­on Z wan­ted to vote by mail but did not know where to buy stamps be­cau­se they are so used to com­mu­ni­ca­ting on­line ra­ther than via US mail. 15
We re­qui­re GPS maps nar­ra­ted by the voice of a di­gi­tal as­sistant to drive across the towns in which we have lived for years. Nora New­com­be, PhD, Pro­fes­sor of Psy­cho­lo­gy at Temp­le Uni­ver­si­ty, sta­ted, ''GPS de­vices cause our na­vi­ga­tio­nal skills to atro­phy, and there’s in­cre­a­sing evi­dence for it. The pro­blem is that you don’t see an over­view of the area, and where you are in re­la­ti­on to other things. You’re not ac­tive­ly na­vi­ga­ting — you’re just lis­te­n­ing to the voice.” 16
Mil­len­ni­als were more li­kely to use pre-​prepared foods, use the In­ter­net for re­cipes, and use a meal de­li­very ser­vice. They were least li­kely to know off­hand how to pre­pa­re la­sa­gna, carve a tur­key, or fry chi­cken, and fewer re­por­ted being a
good cook” than Ge­ne­ra­ti­on X or Baby Boo­mers, who were less li­kely to rely on the In­ter­net for coo­king tasks. 17 18

Using the In­ter­net to store in­for­ma­ti­on we pre­vious­ly would have com­mit­ted to me­mo­ry (how to roast a chi­cken, for ex­am­ple) is offloa­ding.” Ac­cor­ding to Ben­ja­min Storm, PhD, As­so­cia­te Pro­fes­sor of Psy­cho­lo­gy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Ca­li­for­nia at Santa Cruz, Offloa­ding robs you of the op­por­tu­ni­ty to de­ve­lop the long-​term know­ledge struc­tures that help you make crea­ti­ve con­nec­tions, have novel in­si­ghts and deepen your know­ledge.” 17

3

The In­ter­net is caus­ing us to lose the abi­li­ty to per­form simp­le tasks.





5




10




15




20




25



Pro­Con
Pro­Con

Group B: Contra-​Arguments

1

Vir­tual­ly all new tech­no­lo­gies, the In­ter­net in­clu­ded, have been fe­a­red, and those fears have been lar­ge­ly un­foun­ded.

Many tech­no­lo­gies con­side­red com­mon­place today were thought to be ex­tre­me­ly dan­ge­rous upon their in­ven­ti­on. For ex­am­ple, trains cau­sed worry among some that women’s bo­dies were not de­si­gned to go at 50 miles an hour,” and so their ute­r­uses would fly out of {their} bo­dies as they were ac­ce­le­ra­ted to that speed.” Others fe­a­red that bo­dies, re­gard­less of gen­der, would sim­p­ly melt at such a high speed. 19 In­for­ma­ti­on tech­no­lo­gies have not es­caped the centuries-​old tech­no­pho­bia.Greek phi­lo­so­pher So­cra­tes was afraid that wri­ting would trans­plant know­ledge and me­mo­ry. 1

The prin­ting press crea­ted a con­fu­sing and harm­ful ab­un­dance of books” that, ac­cor­ding to phi­lo­so­pher Gott­fried Wil­helm, might lead to a fall back into bar­ba­rism.” 2 21 22

Si­mi­lar­ly, the news­pa­per was going to so­cial­ly iso­la­te peo­ple as they read news alone in­s­tead of gathe­ring at the church’s pul­pit to get in­for­ma­ti­on. 20

The te­le­graph was too fast for the truth,” and its con­stant dif­fu­si­on of state­ments in snip­pets” was be­mo­a­ned. 22 23

The te­le­pho­ne was fe­a­red to crea­te a race of left-​eared peo­ple—that is, of peo­ple who hear bet­ter with the left than with the right ear.” We would be­co­me nothing but trans­pa­rent heaps of jelly to each other,” al­lo­wing basic man­ners to de­gra­de. 22 23

Schools were going to ex­haust the child­ren’s brains and ner­vous sys­tems with com­plex and mul­ti­ple stu­dies, and ruin their bo­dies by pro­trac­ted im­pri­son­ment,” ac­cor­ding to an 1883 me­di­cal jour­nal. Ex­ces­si­ve aca­de­mic study by an­yo­ne was a sure path to men­tal ill­ness. 20
The radio was
loud and un­ne­cessa­ry noise,” and child­ren had de­ve­lo­ped the habit of di­vi­ding at­ten­ti­on bet­ween the hum­drum pre­pa­ra­ti­on of their school as­sign­ments and the com­pel­ling ex­ci­te­ment of the loudspea­k­er.” 20 22
Te­le­vi­si­on was going to be the down­fall of radio, con­ver­sa­ti­on, rea­ding, and fa­mi­ly life. 20
Cal­cu­la­tors were going to de­s­troy kids’ grasp of math con­cepts. 2
The VCR was going to be the end of the film in­dus­try. Mo­ti­on Pic­tu­re As­so­cia­ti­on of Ame­ri­ca’s (MPAA) Jack Va­len­ti com­p­lai­ned to Con­gress,
I say to you that the VCR is to the Ame­ri­can film pro­du­cer and the Ame­ri­can pu­blic as the {se­ri­al kil­ler} Bos­ton Strang­ler is to the woman home alone.” 24

Cli­ni­cal and neu­ro­psy­cho­lo­gist Vaughn Bell, PhD, DClin­Psy, noted, "Wor­ries about in­for­ma­ti­on over­load are as old as in­for­ma­ti­on its­elf, with each ge­ne­ra­ti­on rei­ma­gi­ning the dan­ge­rous im­pac­ts of tech­no­lo­gy on mind and brain. From a his­to­ri­cal per­spec­ti­ve, what strikes home is not the evo­lu­ti­on of these so­cial con­cerns, but their si­mi­la­ri­ty from one cen­tu­ry to the next, to the point where they ar­ri­ve anew with litt­le ha­ving chan­ged ex­cept the label.” 20

Pro­Con

Many tech­no­lo­gies con­side­red com­mon­place today were thought to be ex­tre­me­ly dan­ge­rous upon their in­ven­ti­on. For ex­am­ple, trains cau­sed worry among some that women’s bo­dies were not de­si­gned to go at 50 miles an hour,” and so their ute­r­uses would fly out of {their} bo­dies as they were ac­ce­le­ra­ted to that speed.” Others fe­a­red that bo­dies, re­gard­less of gen­der, would sim­p­ly melt at such a high speed. 19 In­for­ma­ti­on tech­no­lo­gies have not es­caped the centuries-​old tech­no­pho­bia.Greek phi­lo­so­pher So­cra­tes was afraid that wri­ting would trans­plant know­ledge and me­mo­ry. 1

The prin­ting press crea­ted a con­fu­sing and harm­ful ab­un­dance of books” that, ac­cor­ding to phi­lo­so­pher Gott­fried Wil­helm, might lead to a fall back into bar­ba­rism.” 2 21 22

Si­mi­lar­ly, the news­pa­per was going to so­cial­ly iso­la­te peo­ple as they read news alone in­s­tead of gathe­ring at the church’s pul­pit to get in­for­ma­ti­on. 20

The te­le­graph was too fast for the truth,” and its con­stant dif­fu­si­on of state­ments in snip­pets” was be­mo­a­ned. 22 23

The te­le­pho­ne was fe­a­red to crea­te a race of left-​eared peo­ple—that is, of peo­ple who hear bet­ter with the left than with the right ear.” We would be­co­me nothing but trans­pa­rent heaps of jelly to each other,” al­lo­wing basic man­ners to de­gra­de. 22 23

Schools were going to ex­haust the child­ren’s brains and ner­vous sys­tems with com­plex and mul­ti­ple stu­dies, and ruin their bo­dies by pro­trac­ted im­pri­son­ment,” ac­cor­ding to an 1883 me­di­cal jour­nal. Ex­ces­si­ve aca­de­mic study by an­yo­ne was a sure path to men­tal ill­ness. 20
The radio was
loud and un­ne­cessa­ry noise,” and child­ren had de­ve­lo­ped the habit of di­vi­ding at­ten­ti­on bet­ween the hum­drum pre­pa­ra­ti­on of their school as­sign­ments and the com­pel­ling ex­ci­te­ment of the loudspea­k­er.” 20 22
Te­le­vi­si­on was going to be the down­fall of radio, con­ver­sa­ti­on, rea­ding, and fa­mi­ly life. 20
Cal­cu­la­tors were going to de­s­troy kids’ grasp of math con­cepts. 2
The VCR was going to be the end of the film in­dus­try. Mo­ti­on Pic­tu­re As­so­cia­ti­on of Ame­ri­ca’s (MPAA) Jack Va­len­ti com­p­lai­ned to Con­gress,
I say to you that the VCR is to the Ame­ri­can film pro­du­cer and the Ame­ri­can pu­blic as the {se­ri­al kil­ler} Bos­ton Strang­ler is to the woman home alone.” 24

Cli­ni­cal and neu­ro­psy­cho­lo­gist Vaughn Bell, PhD, DClin­Psy, noted, "Wor­ries about in­for­ma­ti­on over­load are as old as in­for­ma­ti­on its­elf, with each ge­ne­ra­ti­on rei­ma­gi­ning the dan­ge­rous im­pac­ts of tech­no­lo­gy on mind and brain. From a his­to­ri­cal per­spec­ti­ve, what strikes home is not the evo­lu­ti­on of these so­cial con­cerns, but their si­mi­la­ri­ty from one cen­tu­ry to the next, to the point where they ar­ri­ve anew with litt­le ha­ving chan­ged ex­cept the label.” 20

1

Vir­tual­ly all new tech­no­lo­gies, the In­ter­net in­clu­ded, have been fe­a­red, and those fears have been lar­ge­ly un­foun­ded.





5




10




15




20




25




30




35

Pro­Con
Pro­Con
2

The In­ter­net gives di­ver­se po­pu­la­ti­ons of peo­ple more equal ac­cess to in­for­ma­ti­on and so­cie­ty.

The basis of the ar­gu­ment that the In­ter­net is “ma­king us stu­pid” is pro­ble­ma­tic and igno­res large po­pu­la­ti­ons of peo­ple. First, the idea of “stu­pi­di­ty” ver­sus in­tel­li­gence re­lies hea­vi­ly upon IQ and other stan­dar­di­zed tests, which are ra­cist, clas­sist, and se­xist. 25 26 27 28 29 30



Ad­di­tio­nal­ly, so­me­whe­re bet­ween 21 and 42 mil­li­on Ame­ri­cans do not have re­lia­ble broad­band ac­cess to the In­ter­net at home, or bet­ween 6 and 13. And 49% of the US po­pu­la­ti­on (162 mil­li­on peo­ple) is not using the In­ter­net at broad­band speeds. Thus we have to ques­ti­on who the “us” in­clu­des when we ask if the In­ter­net is “ma­king us stu­pid.” 31 32



For those who do have ac­cess, the In­ter­net is an im­pres­si­ve tool. Kris­tin Jenkins, PhD, Exe­cu­ti­ve Di­rec­tor of Bio­QUEST Cur­ri­cu­lum Con­sor­ti­um, ex­p­lai­ned, “Ac­cess to in­for­ma­ti­on is enor­mously power­ful, and the In­ter­net has pro­vi­ded ac­cess to peo­ple in a way we have never be­fo­re ex­pe­ri­en­ced… In­for­ma­ti­on that was once ac­ces­sed through print ma­te­ri­als that were not availa­ble to ever­yo­ne and often out of date is now much more rea­di­ly availa­ble to many more peo­ple.” ³³



So­cial media in par­ti­cu­lar of­fers an ac­ces­si­ble mode of com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on for many peo­ple with disabi­li­ties. Deaf and hearing-​impaired peo­ple don’t have to worry if a hea­ring per­son knows sign lan­guage or will be pa­ti­ent enough to re­peat them­sel­ves for cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on. The In­ter­net also of­fers spaces where peo­ple with si­mi­lar disabi­li­ties can con­gre­ga­te to so­cia­li­ze, offer sup­port, or share in­for­ma­ti­on, all wit­hout lea­ving home, an ad­di­tio­nal be­ne­fit for those for whom lea­ving home is dif­fi­cu­lt or im­pos­si­ble. 34



Older adults use the In­ter­net to carry out a num­ber of ever­y­day tasks, which is es­pe­cial­ly va­lua­ble if they don’t have local fa­mi­ly, fri­ends, or so­cial ser­vices to help. Older adults who use the In­ter­net were also more li­kely to be tied to other peo­ple so­cial­ly via hobby, sup­port, or other groups. 35 36

Pro­Con

The basis of the ar­gu­ment that the In­ter­net is “ma­king us stu­pid” is pro­ble­ma­tic and igno­res large po­pu­la­ti­ons of peo­ple. First, the idea of “stu­pi­di­ty” ver­sus in­tel­li­gence re­lies hea­vi­ly upon IQ and other stan­dar­di­zed tests, which are ra­cist, clas­sist, and se­xist. 25 26 27 28 29 30



Ad­di­tio­nal­ly, so­me­whe­re bet­ween 21 and 42 mil­li­on Ame­ri­cans do not have re­lia­ble broad­band ac­cess to the In­ter­net at home, or bet­ween 6 and 13. And 49% of the US po­pu­la­ti­on (162 mil­li­on peo­ple) is not using the In­ter­net at broad­band speeds. Thus we have to ques­ti­on who the “us” in­clu­des when we ask if the In­ter­net is “ma­king us stu­pid.” 31 32



For those who do have ac­cess, the In­ter­net is an im­pres­si­ve tool. Kris­tin Jenkins, PhD, Exe­cu­ti­ve Di­rec­tor of Bio­QUEST Cur­ri­cu­lum Con­sor­ti­um, ex­p­lai­ned, “Ac­cess to in­for­ma­ti­on is enor­mously power­ful, and the In­ter­net has pro­vi­ded ac­cess to peo­ple in a way we have never be­fo­re ex­pe­ri­en­ced… In­for­ma­ti­on that was once ac­ces­sed through print ma­te­ri­als that were not availa­ble to ever­yo­ne and often out of date is now much more rea­di­ly availa­ble to many more peo­ple.” ³³



So­cial media in par­ti­cu­lar of­fers an ac­ces­si­ble mode of com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on for many peo­ple with disabi­li­ties. Deaf and hearing-​impaired peo­ple don’t have to worry if a hea­ring per­son knows sign lan­guage or will be pa­ti­ent enough to re­peat them­sel­ves for cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on. The In­ter­net also of­fers spaces where peo­ple with si­mi­lar disabi­li­ties can con­gre­ga­te to so­cia­li­ze, offer sup­port, or share in­for­ma­ti­on, all wit­hout lea­ving home, an ad­di­tio­nal be­ne­fit for those for whom lea­ving home is dif­fi­cu­lt or im­pos­si­ble. 34



Older adults use the In­ter­net to carry out a num­ber of ever­y­day tasks, which is es­pe­cial­ly va­lua­ble if they don’t have local fa­mi­ly, fri­ends, or so­cial ser­vices to help. Older adults who use the In­ter­net were also more li­kely to be tied to other peo­ple so­cial­ly via hobby, sup­port, or other groups. 35 36

2

The In­ter­net gives di­ver­se po­pu­la­ti­ons of peo­ple more equal ac­cess to in­for­ma­ti­on and so­cie­ty.






5





10




15






20





25

Pro­Con
Pro­Con
3

Chan­ging how the brain works and how we ac­cess and pro­cess in­for­ma­ti­on is not ne­ces­sa­ri­ly bad.

Neu­ro­s­ci­en­tist Erman Mi­sir­lisoy, PhD, ar­gues that “In­ter­net usage has ‘Googli­fied’ our brains, ma­king us more de­pen­dent on kno­wing where to ac­cess facts and less able to re­mem­ber the facts them­sel­ves. This might sound a litt­le de­pres­sing, but it makes per­fect sense if we are ma­king the most of the tools and re­sour­ces availa­ble to us. Who needs to waste their men­tal re­sour­ces on re­mem­be­ring that an ‘ostrich’s eye is big­ger than its brain,’ when the In­ter­net can tell us at a mo­ment’s no­ti­ce? Let’s save our brains for more im­portant pro­blems… {And} as with prac­ti­cal­ly ever­ything in the world, mo­de­ra­ti­on and thought­ful con­sump­ti­on are li­kely to go a long way.” 37



While we do tend to use the In­ter­net to look up more facts now, con­sider what we did be­fo­re the In­ter­net. Did we know this in­for­ma­ti­on? Or did we con­sult a cook­book or call a fri­end who knows how to roast chi­cken? Ben­ja­min C. Storm, PhD, As­so­cia­te Pro­fes­sor of Psy­cho­lo­gy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Ca­li­for­nia at Santa Cruz, ex­p­lai­ned, “It re­mains to be seen whe­ther this in­cre­ased re­li­ance on the In­ter­net is in any way dif­fe­rent from the type of in­cre­ased re­li­ance one might ex­pe­ri­ence on other in­for­ma­ti­on sources.” 38



As with anything in life, mo­de­ra­ti­on and smart usage play a role in the In­ter­net’s ef­fec­ts on us. Nir Eyal, au­t­hor of Hoo­ked: How to Build Habit-​Forming Pro­duc­ts (2013), sum­ma­ri­zed, “Tech­no­lo­gy is like smo­king can­na­bis. Ni­ne­ty per­cent of peo­ple who smoke can­na­bis do not get ad­dic­ted. But the point is that you’re going to get some peo­ple who mi­su­se a pro­duct; if it’s suf­fi­ci­ent­ly good and en­ga­ging, that’s bound to hap­pen.” We, and the In­ter­net, have to learn to mo­de­ra­te our in­ta­ke. 39



Hea­ther Kirk­o­ri­an, PhD, As­so­cia­te Pro­fes­sor in Early Child­hood Psy­cho­lo­gy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Wis­con­sin Madi­son, of­fe­red another ex­am­ple: “the ef­fec­ts of so­cial media de­pend on whe­ther we use them to con­nect with loved ones throug­hout the day and get so­cial sup­port ver­sus {use them to} com­pa­re our lives to the often high­ly fil­te­red lives of others and ex­po­se our­sel­ves to bul­ly­ing or other ne­ga­ti­ve con­tent.” 39

Pro­Con

Neu­ro­s­ci­en­tist Erman Mi­sir­lisoy, PhD, ar­gues that “In­ter­net usage has ‘Googli­fied’ our brains, ma­king us more de­pen­dent on kno­wing where to ac­cess facts and less able to re­mem­ber the facts them­sel­ves. This might sound a litt­le de­pres­sing, but it makes per­fect sense if we are ma­king the most of the tools and re­sour­ces availa­ble to us. Who needs to waste their men­tal re­sour­ces on re­mem­be­ring that an ‘ostrich’s eye is big­ger than its brain,’ when the In­ter­net can tell us at a mo­ment’s no­ti­ce? Let’s save our brains for more im­portant pro­blems… {And} as with prac­ti­cal­ly ever­ything in the world, mo­de­ra­ti­on and thought­ful con­sump­ti­on are li­kely to go a long way.” 37



While we do tend to use the In­ter­net to look up more facts now, con­sider what we did be­fo­re the In­ter­net. Did we know this in­for­ma­ti­on? Or did we con­sult a cook­book or call a fri­end who knows how to roast chi­cken? Ben­ja­min C. Storm, PhD, As­so­cia­te Pro­fes­sor of Psy­cho­lo­gy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Ca­li­for­nia at Santa Cruz, ex­p­lai­ned, “It re­mains to be seen whe­ther this in­cre­ased re­li­ance on the In­ter­net is in any way dif­fe­rent from the type of in­cre­ased re­li­ance one might ex­pe­ri­ence on other in­for­ma­ti­on sources.” 38



As with anything in life, mo­de­ra­ti­on and smart usage play a role in the In­ter­net’s ef­fec­ts on us. Nir Eyal, au­t­hor of Hoo­ked: How to Build Habit-​Forming Pro­duc­ts (2013), sum­ma­ri­zed, “Tech­no­lo­gy is like smo­king can­na­bis. Ni­ne­ty per­cent of peo­ple who smoke can­na­bis do not get ad­dic­ted. But the point is that you’re going to get some peo­ple who mi­su­se a pro­duct; if it’s suf­fi­ci­ent­ly good and en­ga­ging, that’s bound to hap­pen.” We, and the In­ter­net, have to learn to mo­de­ra­te our in­ta­ke. 39



Hea­ther Kirk­o­ri­an, PhD, As­so­cia­te Pro­fes­sor in Early Child­hood Psy­cho­lo­gy at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Wis­con­sin Madi­son, of­fe­red another ex­am­ple: “the ef­fec­ts of so­cial media de­pend on whe­ther we use them to con­nect with loved ones throug­hout the day and get so­cial sup­port ver­sus {use them to} com­pa­re our lives to the often high­ly fil­te­red lives of others and ex­po­se our­sel­ves to bul­ly­ing or other ne­ga­ti­ve con­tent.” 39

3

Chan­ging how the brain works and how we ac­cess and pro­cess in­for­ma­ti­on is not ne­ces­sa­ri­ly bad.





5





10





15




20






25

Pro­Con
Pro­Con

Ci­ta­ti­ons

1. Ni­cho­las Carr, “Is Goog­le Ma­king Us Stu­pid?,” the­a­t­lan­tic.com, July/Aug. 2008  

2. Ni­cho­las Carr, The Shal­lows: What the In­ter­net Is Doing to Our Brains, 2020  

3. Jo­seph Firth, et al., “The ‘On­line Brain’: How the In­ter­net May Be Chan­ging Our Co­gni­ti­on,” World Psych­ia­try, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, June 2019

4. Ma­ryan­ne Wolf, “Skim Rea­ding Is the New Nor­mal. The Ef­fect on So­cie­ty Is Pro­found,” the­guar­di­an.com, Aug. 25, 2018

5. Bon­nie  Kris­ti­an, “Our Pa­rents War­ned Us the In­ter­net Would Break Our Brains.  It Broke Theirs In­s­tead.,” the­week.com, Nov. 25, 2020  

6. Will Co­na­way, “Tech­no­lo­gy Is on the Rise, while IQ Is on the De­cli­ne,” for­bes.com, Apr. 29, 2020  

7. Bob Yirka, “Re­se­ar­chers Find IQ Scores Drop­ping since the 1970s,” me­di­calx­press.com, June 12, 2018  

8. Ma­hi­ta Ga­janan, “IQ Scores Are Fal­ling Due to En­vi­ron­men­tal Fac­tors, Study Finds,” time.com, June 13, 2018  

9. Rory Smith, “IQ scores Are Fal­ling and Have Been for Deca­des, New Study Finds,” cnn.com, June 14, 2018  

10. Bernt Brats­berg and Ole Ro­ge­berg,” Flynn Ef­fect and Its Re­ver­sal Are Both En­vi­ron­men­tal­ly Cau­sed,” pnas.org, June 26, 2018  

11. Scot­tie  An­drew, “Are Hu­mans Dum­ber? Study Finds IQ Scores Have Been Drop­ping  for Deca­des, and the Media Might Be to Blame,” news­week.com, June 12,  2018  

12. Britt­a­ny Le­vi­ne Beck­man, “The In­ter­net Tri­cked Me into Be­lie­ving I Can Mul­ti­task,” mas­ha­ble.com, Jan. 31, 2021  

13. David Bur­kus, “Why You Can’t Multi-​Task,” psy­cho­lo­gy­to­day.com, Nov. 15, 2018    

14. Jodie Naze, “Does Using the In­ter­net Re­du­ce Your In­tel­li­gence?,” com­pu­ter­world.com, May 10, 2005  

15. Ash­ley  Coll­man, “Col­lege Stu­dents Say They Can't Send in Their Ab­sen­tee  Bal­lots be­cau­se They Don't Know Where to Buy Stamps,”  busi­ness­in­si­der.com, Sep. 19, 2018  

16. Jo­seph Strom­berg, “Is GPS Rui­ning Our Abi­li­ty to Na­vi­ga­te for Our­sel­ves?,” vox.com, Sep 2, 2015  

17. Maura  Jud­kis, “Do Mil­len­ni­als Re­al­ly Not Know How to Cook? With Tech­no­lo­gy,  They Don’t Re­al­ly Have To.,” wa­shing­ton­post.com, Apr. 12, 2018  

18. Porch, “Coo­king Night­ma­res: A Ge­ne­ra­tio­nal Look at Ca­pa­bi­li­ties in the Kit­chen,” porch.com (ac­ces­sed Mar. 17, 2021)  

19. Janet Burns, “Early Trains Were Thought to Make Women’s Ute­r­uses Fly Out,” men­tal­floss.com, Aug. 26, 2015  

20. Vaug­han  Bell, “Don’t Touch That Dial!: A His­to­ry of Media Tech­no­lo­gy Sca­res,  from the Prin­ting Press to Face­book,” slate.com, Feb. 15, 2010  

21. Len Wil­son, “11 Ex­amp­les of Fear and Su­spi­ci­on of New Tech­no­lo­gy,” len­wil­son.us, Feb. 11, 2014  

22. Adri­en­ne  LaF­rance, “In 1858, Peo­ple Said the Te­le­graph Was 'Too Fast for the  Truth' Sound Fa­mi­li­ar?,” the­a­t­lan­tic.com, July 28, 2014  

23. Tay­lor Da­ni­elle, “9 Times in His­to­ry When Ever­yo­ne Fre­a­k­ed out about New Tech­no­lo­gy” ran­ker.com (ac­ces­sed Mar. 15, 2021)  

24. Josh Barro, “Thir­ty Years Be­fo­re SOPA, MPAA Fe­a­red the VCR,” for­bes.com, Jan. 18, 2012  

25. John Ro­sa­les, "The Ra­cist Be­gin­nings of Stan­dar­di­zed Testing," nea.org, Apr. 24, 2018  

26. Front­li­ne, "In­ter­view: James Po­pham," pbs.org, Apr. 25, 2001  

27. Young Whan Choi, "How to Ad­dress Ra­cial Bias in Stan­dar­di­zed Testing," next­gen­lear­ning.org, Mar. 31, 2020  

28. Chris­to­pher Berg­land, "Why Do Rich Kids Have Higher Stan­dar­di­zed Test Scores?," psy­cho­lo­gy­to­day.com, Apr. 18, 2015  

29. Eloy Ortiz Oak­ley, "Com­men­ta­ry: Stan­dar­di­zed Tests Re­ward Kids from Weal­t­hy Fa­mi­lies," san­die­gounion­tri­bu­ne.com, Nov. 27, 2019  

30. Carly Ber­wick, "What Does the Re­se­arch Say about Testing?," ed­u­to­pia.org, Oct. 25, 2019  

31. Tyler  Son­ne­ma­ker, “The Num­ber of Ame­ri­cans wit­hout Re­lia­ble In­ter­net Ac­cess  May Be Way Higher than the Go­ver­n­ment's Esti­ma­te — and That Could Cause  Major Pro­blems in 2020,” busi­ness­in­si­der.com, Mar. 12, 2020

32. Mi­cro­soft News Cen­ter, “Next­link In­ter­net and Mi­cro­soft Clo­sing Broad­band Gap in Cen­tral US,” news.mi­cro­soft.com, Sep. 18, 2019  

33. Kath­leen  Stans­ber­ry, Janna An­der­son, and Lee Rai­nie, “Ex­perts Op­ti­mi­stic about  the Next 50 Years of Di­gi­tal Life,” pe­w­re­se­arch.org, Oct. 28, 2019  

34. Re­bec­ca Thor­ne, “So­cial Media as a Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on Tool for Dis­ab­led Peo­ple,” ever­yo­ne­can.org.uk (ac­ces­sed on Mar. 16, 2021)  

35. Nam­kee  G Choi and Diana M Di­Nit­to, “In­ter­net Use among Older Adults:  As­so­cia­ti­on with Health Needs, Psy­cho­lo­gi­cal Ca­pi­tal, and So­cial  Ca­pi­tal,” Jour­nal of Me­di­cal In­ter­net Re­se­arch, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, May 2013  

36. An­dre­as Ihle, et al., “In­ter­net Use in Old Age Pre­dic­ts Smal­ler Co­gni­ti­ve De­cli­ne Only in Men,” na­tu­re.com, June 2, 2020  

37. Erman Mi­sir­lisoy, “This Is Your Brain on the In­ter­net,” me­di­um.com, Sep. 3, 2018  

38. Saga Briggs, “6 Ways Di­gi­tal Media Im­pac­ts the Brain,” open­col­leges.edu.au, Sep. 12, 2016

39. Brian  Res­nick, Julia Bel­luz, and Eliza Bar­clay, “Is Our Con­stant Use of  Di­gi­tal Tech­no­lo­gies Af­fec­ting Our Brain Health?,” vox.com, Feb 26, 2019  

40. David In­g­ram, "The In­ter­net Is Tri­cking Our Brains," nbcnews.com, Dec. 9, 2021  

41. Pro­Con.org, "Ques­ti­ons on the In­ter­net," pro­con.org, Sep. 1, 2022



x