Good news! I understood this one. Completely. Yes it may be hard to tell from reading just text, but I am in fact implying that it was ridiculously repetitive. In fact, it reminded me of a slightly more informal version of the traditional uptight, artificially written school essay that bores me half to death and makes me shudder on how scholars and professors believe its good writing. But like I said, slightly more informal so it made it bearable.
Okay. The intro, although I am entirely familiar with it, felt out of place. Or at least there were so many better choices that the author could've used. I suppose it served its basic purpose and he did end up connecting it well in the conclusion. Another positive, he was far....far far far far away from being short of examples, connections, and citations in his text. Every other paragraph was some guy, from some time, doing something to notice they were becoming more "staccato" in their thinking. I loved that phrase.
Really, the thinks I connected with best were all of the mentions of the parts, functions and characteristics of the brain. I took psychology so most of the concepts and vocab to do with the brain i understood. As with the examples from Plato's texts as I also took philosophy and studied his works.
Admittedly, I nerded completely whenever I heard the term artificial intelligence or AI. I have followed, played, watched too much sci fi garbage to hear just about everything there is to hear about AI. and honestly, I can say I'm disturbingly open to having another processor and hard drive implanted into my head.
As a whole, I can't say I agree with the theory of the essay. Google isn't making us stupid. If used correctly....CORRECTLY....it's making us as individuals more proficient.I'd explain in more detail, but I have other plans with my day off....in summer.
Anywho, I'm not going to continue writing this boring blog with my improper vocab or writing habits. But I will say this piece was slightly less painful from the last. Thanks for the read Mr. Kunkle and Nicholas Carr.
I like what you said that Google isn't making us stupid if we use it correctly, but I think that was part of the point Carr was trying to get to in this essay. Today people are about efficiency, and somewhere along the way people began to believe that quick was the same thing and it is not. I know I am guilty of this myself, but when writing a paper, looking for sources we need to cite, we go through, looking through websites as quickly as possible to find the fastest way to get what little statements we want to find, but leave out the integrity of the work as a whole that we are citing. When you look at papers and essays of the greatest writers, you see that they make references to entire books that they have read, preserving the piece as a whole and using it to their advantage and as the use of the internet has developed into a necessity for most people and people have started to use it incorrectly.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that the intro didn't quite fit with the rest of the essay. I agree that he used examples and quotes well in the first couple of paragraphs.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you and agree with Carr's theory though. I think that you're right that it's making research more efficient and individuals more proficient in collecting data, but I think the efficiency is short term and is permanently impairing the way our brains work.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the intro thing as well...and the idea about using Google correctly. And..that this one wasn't as bad as the skunk one...lol. I like your blog.
ReplyDeleteThis was also one that I could fully understand! I agree with you in that Google is not making us stupid if we use it correctly. It is making us more proficient and especially with the use of our time. And yeah we all had other plans and better things to do with our days off in summer than ap comp lol
ReplyDelete