• English Debate Class
  • J. Schmitz
  • 13.04.2023
  • Englisch
  • 10
Um die Lizenzinformationen zu sehen, klicken Sie bitte den gewünschten Inhalt an.
1
With a part­ner, de­scri­be what you see on the image, take notes:
2
Be pre­pa­red to dis­cuss the me­a­ning of the image with the class:

Lead-​In

1
Com­pa­re what is more in­si­ght­ful:
  • a tweet?
  • a book?
2
Watch the video, sum­ma­ri­se Ni­co­las Carr's main point in your own words:

Vo­ca­bu­la­ry:

  • spe­ci­es (Art): a group of li­ving things that are si­mi­lar in some way
  • shal­low (ober­fläch­lich): not deep; lacking depth or com­ple­xi­ty
  • syn­op­sis (Zu­sam­men­fas­sung): a brief sum­ma­ry or over­view
  • con­text (Kon­text): the cir­cum­s­tances or back­ground in­for­ma­ti­on that helps to un­der­stand so­me­thing
  • com­ple­xi­ty (Kom­ple­xi­tät): the state of being in­trica­te or com­pli­ca­ted
  • fac­to­ids (Fak­ten­häpp­chen): small pieces of in­for­ma­ti­on, often tri­vi­al or in­si­gni­fi­cant
  • trans­mis­si­on (Über­tra­gung): the act of con­vey­ing or pas­sing on in­for­ma­ti­on
  • gra­ti­fi­ca­ti­on (Be­frie­di­gung): the fee­ling of sa­tis­fac­tion or plea­su­re
  • mind­ful­ness (Acht­sam­keit): the qua­li­ty of being aware and fully pre­sent in the mo­ment
  • sa­cri­fi­ci­ng (auf­ge­ben): gi­ving up so­me­thing in ex­chan­ge for so­me­thing else
  • un­der­stan­ding (Ver­ständ­nis): com­pre­hen­si­on or com­pre­hen­si­on
  • cri­ti­cal thin­king (kri­ti­sches Den­ken): the abi­li­ty to ana­ly­se and eva­lu­a­te in­for­ma­ti­on ob­jec­tive­ly and thought­ful­ly
  • pro­cess (Pro­zess): a se­ries of steps or ac­tions taken to achie­ve a parti­cu­lar re­sult
  • me­a­ningless (be­deu­tungs­los): wit­hout si­gni­fican­ce or value
  • ex­pe­ri­ence (Er­fah­rung): the pro­cess of gai­ning know­ledge or skill th­rough di­rect in­vol­vement or ex­posure

Dis­cus­sion Pre­pa­ra­ti­on

At the end of the next ses­si­on, we will pre­pa­re and then hold a de­ba­te about whe­ther the in­ter­net makes us stu­pid. You will be as­si­gned 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.
4
Pre­pa­re an ope­ning state­ment for the de­ba­te as well as your main ar­gu­ments.
  • Use the ad­vice given in the Use­ful Phra­ses sec­tion to make your ar­gu­ments more con­vin­cing.

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

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.

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

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.

Ni­co­las Carr's thought-​provoking article, Is Goog­le Ma­king Us Stu­pid?, pu­blished in The At­lan­tic in July 2008, del­ves into the im­pact of tech­no­lo­gy on human co­gni­ti­on and the way we pro­cess in­for­ma­ti­on. As a wri­ter and tech­no­lo­gy cri­tic, Carr shares his con­cerns about how the in­ter­net, parti­cu­lar­ly Goog­le, may be sha­ping our brains and chan­ging the way we think.



Carr be­gins his article with a per­so­nal an­ec­do­te about how he noti­ced chan­ges in his own re­a­ding ha­bits and at­ten­ti­on span since he star­ted using the in­ter­net ex­ten­si­ve­ly. He de­scri­bes how he finds it in­crea­sing­ly dif­fi­cult to con­cen­tra­te on long articles or books and tends to skim th­rough in­for­ma­ti­on ra­ther than deeply en­ga­ging with it. Carr rai­ses the ques­ti­on of whe­ther our re­li­ance on Goog­le for quick and easy ac­cess to in­for­ma­ti­on is af­fec­ting our abi­li­ty to focus and think cri­ti­cal­ly.



One key ar­gu­ment that Carr pres­ents is the idea of neu­ro­plasti­ci­ty, which re­fers to the brain's abi­li­ty to adapt and chan­ge based on its ex­pe­ri­en­ces. He sug­gests that our brains are con­stant­ly being re­wired by our on­line ac­ti­vi­ties, and that the in­ter­net, with its con­stant bom­bard­ment of in­for­ma­ti­on and dis­trac­tions, may be re­wiring our brains in ways that are de­tri­men­tal to deep re­a­ding and cri­ti­cal thin­king.



Carr also cites re­se­arch stu­dies and quo­tes from scho­lars to sup­port his ar­gu­ment. He re­fe­ren­ces Ma­ryan­ne Wolf, a co­gni­ti­ve neu­ro­sci­en­tist, who ex­pres­ses con­cerns about how the in­ter­net may be af­fec­ting our abi­li­ty to

Ni­co­las Carr's thought-​provoking article, Is Goog­le Ma­king Us Stu­pid?, pu­blished in The At­lan­tic in July 2008, del­ves into the im­pact of tech­no­lo­gy on human co­gni­ti­on and the way we pro­cess in­for­ma­ti­on. As a wri­ter and tech­no­lo­gy cri­tic, Carr shares his con­cerns about how the in­ter­net, parti­cu­lar­ly Goog­le, may be sha­ping our brains and chan­ging the way we think.



Carr be­gins his article with a per­so­nal an­ec­do­te about how he noti­ced chan­ges in his own re­a­ding ha­bits and at­ten­ti­on span since he star­ted using the in­ter­net ex­ten­si­ve­ly. He de­scri­bes how he finds it in­crea­sing­ly dif­fi­cult to con­cen­tra­te on long articles or books and tends to skim th­rough in­for­ma­ti­on ra­ther than deeply en­ga­ging with it. Carr rai­ses the ques­ti­on of whe­ther our re­li­ance on Goog­le for quick and easy ac­cess to in­for­ma­ti­on is af­fec­ting our abi­li­ty to focus and think cri­ti­cal­ly.



One key ar­gu­ment that Carr pres­ents is the idea of neu­ro­plasti­ci­ty, which re­fers to the brain's abi­li­ty to adapt and chan­ge based on its ex­pe­ri­en­ces. He sug­gests that our brains are con­stant­ly being re­wired by our on­line ac­ti­vi­ties, and that the in­ter­net, with its con­stant bom­bard­ment of in­for­ma­ti­on and dis­trac­tions, may be re­wiring our brains in ways that are de­tri­men­tal to deep re­a­ding and cri­ti­cal thin­king.



Carr also cites re­se­arch stu­dies and quo­tes from scho­lars to sup­port his ar­gu­ment. He re­fe­ren­ces Ma­ryan­ne Wolf, a co­gni­ti­ve neu­ro­sci­en­tist, who ex­pres­ses con­cerns about how the in­ter­net may be af­fec­ting our abi­li­ty to





5






10





15





20

com­pre­hend com­plex texts and en­ga­ge in deep re­a­ding, which in­vol­ves fo­cu­sed at­ten­ti­on and cri­ti­cal ana­ly­sis. Carr also dis­cus­ses the con­cept of hy­per­links and how they may dis­rupt the flow of re­a­ding and en­cou­ra­ge su­per­fi­ci­al skim­ming, as rea­ders are temp­ted to click on links and na­vi­ga­te away from the main text.



Fur­ther­mo­re, Carr rai­ses con­cerns about the im­pact of tech­no­lo­gy on me­mo­ry and our abi­li­ty to re­tain in­for­ma­ti­on. He ar­gues that our re­li­ance on ex­ter­nal tools like Goog­le for in­for­ma­ti­on re­trie­val may di­mi­nish our ca­pa­ci­ty to store in­for­ma­ti­on in our long-​term me­mo­ry and de­ve­lop a deep un­der­stan­ding of com­plex sub­jects.



In con­clu­si­on, Ni­co­las Carr's article Is Goog­le Ma­king Us Stu­pid? pres­ents a thought-​provoking ar­gu­ment about the po­ten­ti­al ef­fects of tech­no­lo­gy, parti­cu­lar­ly the in­ter­net and Goog­le, on our co­gni­ti­ve abi­li­ties, at­ten­ti­on span, and cri­ti­cal thin­king skills. He rai­ses con­cerns about how our on­line ac­ti­vi­ties may be res­ha­ping our brains and chan­ging the way we pro­cess in­for­ma­ti­on, and he urges rea­ders to re­flect on the im­pli­ca­ti­ons of these chan­ges. Carr's article ser­ves as a ti­me­ly and re­le­vant cri­tique of the di­gi­tal age and its im­pact on our co­gni­ti­ve pro­ces­ses, in­vi­ting rea­ders to con­sider the po­ten­ti­al con­se­quen­ces of our in­crea­sing re­li­ance on tech­no­lo­gy for in­for­ma­ti­on con­sump­ti­on and pro­ces­sing.

com­pre­hend com­plex texts and en­ga­ge in deep re­a­ding, which in­vol­ves fo­cu­sed at­ten­ti­on and cri­ti­cal ana­ly­sis. Carr also dis­cus­ses the con­cept of hy­per­links and how they may dis­rupt the flow of re­a­ding and en­cou­ra­ge su­per­fi­ci­al skim­ming, as rea­ders are temp­ted to click on links and na­vi­ga­te away from the main text.



Fur­ther­mo­re, Carr rai­ses con­cerns about the im­pact of tech­no­lo­gy on me­mo­ry and our abi­li­ty to re­tain in­for­ma­ti­on. He ar­gues that our re­li­ance on ex­ter­nal tools like Goog­le for in­for­ma­ti­on re­trie­val may di­mi­nish our ca­pa­ci­ty to store in­for­ma­ti­on in our long-​term me­mo­ry and de­ve­lop a deep un­der­stan­ding of com­plex sub­jects.



In con­clu­si­on, Ni­co­las Carr's article Is Goog­le Ma­king Us Stu­pid? pres­ents a thought-​provoking ar­gu­ment about the po­ten­ti­al ef­fects of tech­no­lo­gy, parti­cu­lar­ly the in­ter­net and Goog­le, on our co­gni­ti­ve abi­li­ties, at­ten­ti­on span, and cri­ti­cal thin­king skills. He rai­ses con­cerns about how our on­line ac­ti­vi­ties may be res­ha­ping our brains and chan­ging the way we pro­cess in­for­ma­ti­on, and he urges rea­ders to re­flect on the im­pli­ca­ti­ons of these chan­ges. Carr's article ser­ves as a ti­me­ly and re­le­vant cri­tique of the di­gi­tal age and its im­pact on our co­gni­ti­ve pro­ces­ses, in­vi­ting rea­ders to con­sider the po­ten­ti­al con­se­quen­ces of our in­crea­sing re­li­ance on tech­no­lo­gy for in­for­ma­ti­on con­sump­ti­on and pro­ces­sing.




25





30





35




40

x