Alex Schlack
Chris Werry
RWS100
November 9, 2014
“Is
Google Making Us Stupid”
In
the late 1960’s, there was an invention, an invention that is debatably
considered to be the best technological advancements ever to be created in
history, the Internet. The Internet as we know it, has developed drastically
over the years and has become one the soul aspects of our society today. It is
the most convenient virtual system, possessing infinite amounts of information
and available at anytime for people to access and learn anything they
want. And Google is the most popular and
most visited specialized search engine in the world. But recently, there has been a stirring
debate over the negative effects of the Internet due to people questioning how it’s
modifying our brain and our thinking process. In the article, “’Is Google
Making Us Stupid,” Nicholas Carr engages in the worldwide discrepancy and
shares his belief that the Internet does indeed change our world more than just
simply opening up information. Carr’s overall claim is that technology, quick
browsing and having Google spit out answers, has altered our way of critical thinking
and focusing on detail. In this paper, I
will analyze the rhetoric strategies utilized by Carr to demonstrate his main
argument and argue that Carr creates a very persuasive point even though his
views go against the majority of the public.
One
of the most important strategies and rhetoric tactics that Carr exercises in
his article is exemplification.
Exemplification is the process of providing the reader with evidence and
credibility through various examples, statistics, anecdotes, and other
people. Carr uses exemplification in his
writing to support his point that the Net is chipping away at our capacity to
concentrate and contemplate normally. He uses an analogy to further explain his
claim, when he adds, “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words, now I zip
along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.
One piece that Carr uses is a couple of bloggers that Carr follows, who
have been talking about this phenomenon.
One of these bloggers is named Bruce Friedman, who is someone who reads
and writes daily about computers. He
stated, “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a
longish article on the web or in print,” and then goes on about how instead of
thoroughly reading and understanding long passages he now, as he said, “skims
it.” This especially is a prime example, and goes to show that even the people
who read and write the most, see a natural change occurring from reading from
the Net rather than from books. Carr also mentions a study that was done and
ran by scholars from the University of London, where they created a five year
research program website with access to journals, e-books, and other resource
information and evaluated the visitors. Only
did they find that the visitors exhibited a form of skimming activity, and that
almost nobody read more than one or two pages of each written passage. This
example exemplifies this sort of “laziness” that people are acquiring from
googling, and has basically ruined our reading capabilities to read things
fully and have our brain comprehend everything.
Another
route that Carr takes to engrave his claim even more is the classic rhetoric
strategy of logos. Logos is the ability of focusing on a more logical approach,
in order to appeal to a large audience.
Carr initially starts out his article with an emotional standpoint
simply comparing the negative downsides of the Net along with the benefits.
Even though it is rather difficult to stand in Carr’s position, considering the
public’s opinion is and will always be in favor of the internet, Carr does a
good job of making “them” ponder.” He delivers a new style of factually
persuading the reader into believing that technology truly does affect the way
we think. Carr uses a historical
example, the story of Nietzsche and the typewriter. In 1881, Friedrich
Nietzsche’s vision was starting to fail, so he bought a typewriter and mastered
the keys so he couldn’t continue doing what he loved most, writing. One of his friends noticed a change in his
writing. “His terse prose had become
even tighter, more telegraphic…in his own work, his thoughts in music and
language often depend on the quality of pen and paper.” It’s remarkable to think of how big of an
effect the typewriter had on Nietzsche’s life, changing his writing styles and
thoughts. This is an amazing reminder of
how technology can configure the way we think. Carr implements this life story
to show people that technology modifies our brain and the way we understand
things. He also presents credible evidence to back him up. He references the Krasnow Institute for
Advanced Study at Michigan University, who concluded that brain is infinitely
malleable, and is also susceptible to change.
There are millions of neurons inside the brain that can routinely break
and form new connections, which is what happens through different reading
methods. “The brain has the ability to
reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.” Carr’s use of logos is great, and he does a
good job of potentially shifting our perspective on the accouterments of
technology. Carr creates the keystone of
his argument and implements his claim real life examples to strengthen his
validity in his personal views.
The
third strategy that Carr uses as an important tool for his article is
Prolepsis. This is designed to address
any possible arguments that contradict or negate against your position.
Prolepsis is something that was a must for Carr to add in his writing, because
almost the entire population thinks of the Net of only having a positive impact
on society. Carr knew that in order to impose his views, he also had to
recognize and address his counter-claim. Carr first does this by pointing out
the vast increase in reading and writing today.
It’s because of the internet, the cell phones, the texting and all the
social media apps that have made reading a major aspect in our lives, far more
than anything in the past. But then Carr
goes along, slowly starting his claim saying, “But it’s a different kind of
reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking-perhaps even a new
sense of self.” Telling the readers and talking about his counter claim is
essential is showing the population that he doesn’t possess a one-sided
argument. It establishes more credibility in his defense as well. What Carr also inquired was the addition of
Goggle’s view, the company that his claims revolve around. “In Google’s view,
information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined
and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can
access and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become
as thinkers.” Carr uses this to prevent
his argument from being countered, and protect him from being criticized by
others for being biased.
Even
though there were some flaws I personally think that Carr wrote a complete and
profound article, that I found very persuasive in a sense. But there still were
some weaknesses that he can improve on. Carr
could have done a more thorough job including more evidence to support his
claims and overall argument, rather than going into too much specifics for the
evidence and sources he did provide.
Also I think that his structure and organization of his writing could be
somewhat cooked. My opinion is that he
should include all his counter argument references in the beginning part of
article. He did a good job listing the stereotypical positives and negatives of
the Net in the personal anecdote at the start, but he should have added the
facts and beliefs of his counter argument then. It is more effective when a
writer first states what “others” believe, and then goes on explains what he
believes differently, and why. It’s
important to lay out what the views that contradicts yours, so that you can
give examples and evidence to demonstrate your own position. Other than that, I give credit to Carr for
strongly utilizing rhetoric strategies.
He integrated these tactics extremely well, which helped him persuade
the audience even more, and still manages to hold his point, and so concluding
Carr is a success in his argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment