Mildred even asks, “Why should I read? What for?” (Bradbury). Ray Bradbury’s predictions are wrong. Technology is beneficial for society in general, but more importantly, for students. Technology has helped students to expand their knowledge and have a deeper understanding of the information they need
Google wants technology chief executive of Google Eric Schmidt says, “To solve problems that have never been solved before,” and artificial intelligence has never been solved. In Google’s mind, the brain is an outdated computer and ambiguity is just a simple bug that can be fixed. The idea, wanting our brains to be like high-speed computers, because companies gain more information when we browse so they learn more about us and can feed us ads. Companies don’t wants us taking the time to read an article because there’s no gain for them in that. Socrates despised the idea of people coming to rely on written word, fearing they would use it to replace knowledge, he wasn’t wrong about that, but he also didn’t see the
This is how she emphasizes how attached teens are to technology. She gives examples on the way students from K-12 are taught to simplify the way they perform academically now that technology has more advances. She says the use of PowerPoints, a computer software, is not the same as critical thinking and great things are learned through long challenging pieces, like books. Another disadvantage we have with technology is that it can be very distracting and people may tend to multi-task. Turkle says "when multitasking, everything gets done a little worse; there 's a degradation of all functions."
Sandra Cortes Professor D. Stansbury English 101 1 September 2015 Focused Summary on Carr’s Article In Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, he explains how he feels that the Web in general is changing they way we think. Carr feels as though the immense about of information at our fingertips is what is keeping us from digging down deeper into our thoughts. He blames the Internet for himself not being able to stay focused on a task or reading a long article through and through. Carr argues that not only does he feel his way of thinking changing but that his friends and acquaintances have also experienced the dilemma at hand. He brings up a good argument about how, in history, technology has changed the way we think before.
Have you ever started to write an essay with at least 5 different tabs open unrelated to the subject matter? Nicolas Carr argues in his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid” that the internet is changing our way of thinking for the worst. In many ways this statement is point of view is purely untrue. For starters,, it makes easy communication across the world simpler. Second, the internet makes access to important info that we would have never known much easier.
The internet along with many other technological advances has brought humanity a long way. Like with all change, there are positive outcomes as well as negative outcomes, and while having information at our fingerprints and obtainable within seconds might be a positive thing, there are still going to be some negative results. Nicholas Carr’s 2008 article published in The Atlantic, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” explains what Carr believes to be some of the negative effects that the usage of the Internet has brought upon us. Carr believes that the Internet is shaping the way that we think and that humans are losing the ability to read long pieces of writing. The purpose of his ironically long article is to convince his readers that the Internet is actually changing the way that we think and interact and to shed light upon something that many people experience, but they might have not realized it yet.
He then begins to reduce it down by using specific reasons. To prove his argument, Carr uses various of different reasons, and experts. For example: Computers, typewriters, and the human brain. Carr’s tone is very morphart. But, throughout “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, he uses many different quotes from several people, that his opinion uld get overshadowed.
Spring points out how cheating is so effortless with online learning and how the temptation is always there. People may start out serious with the course nonetheless when they get use to matters or have trouble many take to cheating and think no one will know. Then there is logos or the logic, he explains factors that many know to be true. For example, the fact that online courses are a more affordable and accessible way for people to “educate” themselves when everyone is so busy. With the technology that has developed in the world and how fast things change, it is only logical that we think this along with these classes having gained
In my opinion, Flint Hill has the better educational approach with regards to technology. I believe this because the school 's’ administration allows students to experiment with technology. By shielding children from modern technology, you are limiting their potential and creating more obstacles for them to overcome in the near future. Furthermore, by exposing kids to technology, students are more eager to learn and are often more interested because they are learning in a form they think is entertaining. Students who sit uncomfortably in desks and listen to rambling lectures are most likely not able to retain information as well, due to the lack of engagement.
Fighting for the “yes” side of the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, published in the New York Times, is Nicholas Carr; he delivers much insight on this issue including, “So even as Google is giving us all that useful information, it 's also encouraging us to think superficially. It 's making us shallow,” (Carr). Carr clearly expresses his view that Google is indeed making us “stupid”, blaming the search engine for superficial thinking and shallow persons. Everyone is reading a stream with only time to pick out keywords but then the stream already presents the next topic, creating a lack of deeper thinking. In Richtel’s article, he addresses the physical isolation that results from technology use, “Mr.
Multitasking is ineffective in the eyes of psychologists for the simple reason that our brains have to switch back and forth from task to task which can confuse the brain and actually take longer. Tugend talks about how we have become accustomed to multitasking. Our brains know no better and subconsciously our brains want to do another task regardless of if we are trying to focus on one thing or not. Some people’s brains have become so accustomed to this that in order for them not to
I conceded that in some ways Google is making us stupid. For example, Carr said “The more they use the web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing” (Carr pg733). For example, sometimes when looking up information it is not always reliable or creditable, one example would be Wikipedia people can change the information and the writing can become false information. Another major problem with google is social anxiety, people are not having face to face interaction with each other, making it harder to be social. One major problem with google is google makes you forget how to look up things manually in the library.
The main issue with Schneier’s article, as Cramer points out, is that he fails to recognize the potential benefits of an internet surveillance state. Not only that, but the first thing he does in his article is give three examples of the good it can do, but he plays them off as negatives. Schneier destroys his own persuasion power when he fails to completely understand what he is describing, because if the writer doesn’t fully grasp the intricacies of the topic, then how is the reader supposed
A computer is just a pile of parts without its processor, and the human body is also rendered useless without the brain. Google presumes that the brain should be enhanced by computers. This is something that Google is working towards, and candidly has many on edge because of its potential to surpass human reasoning and morals. This issue needs to be approached with human responsibility. Google, along with many other large companies are immoral.