Slog - Comments on The Internet Is Eating Our Brains

Comment by cochise.

cochise. — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:24:15 -0800

good post.

Comment by Mr. Poe

Mr. Poe — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:30:07 -0800

And they sent that to you for a specific reason.

Comment by Abby

Abby — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:41:59 -0800

Your social security check is late! Things cost more than they used to! Young people use curse words!

Comment by blank12357

blank12357 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:46:13 -0800

The author's ability to maintain long, tangential, obscure or tedious trains of thought hasn't been affected at all. In fact, he's quite good at it.

Comment by Julie

Julie — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:51:48 -0800

That article just made me think that the people he talked about that were having trouble reading are just getting old. I don't have any trouble reading a book and I've been using the Internet just as long as they have.

Also, the study that showed that people on research sites spend only a short amount of time looking at any one article is retarded. Any time I go looking for an article or academic paper on a research site, it usually takes me a few tries to get what I want ("this sounds promising"... reads a few paragraphs... "hmmm, nope, not what I'm loking for, on to the next").

Comment by Carollani

Carollani — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:57:13 -0800

I just skimmed through that article too! I think it said something about the Internet changing the way we think...? Heh.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:02:44 -0800

And, to carry on your point, Julie, networked research sites allow you to paw through those dozen or more reports in a very short time, rather than the old way of either taking forever or just making do with the inadequate ones you've found so far. Result: better work in less time.

The writer does have a point, though; the pursuit of knowledge has been all downhill since the glory days of a handful of huge hand-scribed books literally chained to the desks at which you were allowed to read them -- assuming of course you were one of the 0.1% who were allowed to read at all, or knew how. Nothing focuses the attention like Blackletter.

One of the big advantages of google and the internet that he doesn't see, and which we have only begun to scratch the surface of, is the amount of brain power we can free up by NOT REMEMBERING THINGS, which is, in fact, the key benefit of books in the first place. I don't have to memorize logarithmic tables anymore; I have a calculator. This does not make me stupider, it makes me smarter. Similarly, I don't have to know a million facts about everything; I just have to know where to find them when I need them.

Comment by arduous

arduous — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:21:24 -0800

Frankly, if it weren't for the internet, I wouldn't ever read an article on the subject he writes about. Nor would I have read articles on architecture, urban planning, evolutionary biology etc.

Sometimes it's hard to read, but then again, those are not areas that are my forte, so of cours they're hard for me to read.

But I can still pick up a novel and be lost to the world in minutes. If it's a good novel that is.

Overall, I think the internet has forced me to expand my mind and delve into areas I normally wouldn't delve into. And if sometimes I have a short attention span for those areas, well, that's because my brain has to work harder when I'm not reading fiction, or not reading about areas in which I'm familiar or can claim some expertise.

Ain't nothing wrong with that.

Comment by AMB

AMB — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:43:43 -0800

tl;dr

Comment by AMB

AMB — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:46:10 -0800

tl;dr

Comment by mintygreen

mintygreen — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:49:20 -0800

As a 17 yr old who can barely remember not having the internet, I have to say I think my attention span for long/tedious books is the same or possibly better than my parents'. And the internet has allowed me to educate myself on subjects I'm interested in even when I lack access to books/classes on those subjects.
I think 5 is write, it could be more the way the brain changes as one ages than the internet. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Still an interesting article, and worth considering.

Comment by Boomer in NYC

Boomer in NYC — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:03:20 -0800

...Uh, what were we talking about?

Comment by DJSauvage

DJSauvage — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:21:16 -0800

The first 2 paragraphs really gave me something to ponder for 5 seconds.

Comment by UnCommonSense

UnCommonSense — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:10:57 -0800

Only one piktyure? This post is for smart peepleses!

Comment by K

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:22:40 -0800

I didn't see the part where the "problem" was identified or why it was bad.

But you know, I didn't spend the time to make deep mental connections about his writing. I was busy looking for raw information to decode.

I think maybe the real reason though was that his article was long-winded presumptuous bullshit. That could just be my easily-distracted brain talking, though.

It's true, I don't think I've actually finished a book since 2003. Unless audiobooks count.

Comment by Greg

Greg — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:24:45 -0800

What the author misses is that we're on the cusp of an age very like the Renaissance, where old books and ideas will find new, fascinated audiences who'll make connections and synthesize and create amazing new things. The internet is making huge changes to our civilization, and it's a wonderful thing.