RWS100 Final Paper, Entering the Conversation

Alex Schlack

Chris Werry

RWS100

November 21, 2014

Entering The Conversation Final Paper

When the Internet was invented, it had one of the biggest universal impacts on society. The Internet exceeded everyone’s expectations of what it could accomplish, growing and expanding as new technological advancements have developed.  It has become one of the most powerful aspects of our everyday lives, that there has been dependence on Google for information, and social media for networking. Nobody would argue that the Internet hasn’t remodeled our everyday life, but the main discrepancy is whether the Internet is a positive or negative innovation. There are various conflicting views on whether the Internet has beneficially affected human cognitive abilities, for example, the two writers Clive Thompson and Nicholas Carr.  Clive Thompson wrote an article called “Public Thinking,” where he discusses how the Internet has positively affected our brains.  According to Thompson, this vast increase in public writing inspired by the Internet is an important change for individuals, and that it ultimately clarifies our thinking process, generate ideas, and improves our memory.  Then Nicholas Carr on the other hand tends to think a little differently. Carr wrote the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” where he disputes Thompson’s claim.  According to Carr, there is a downside to all the reading and writing on the Internet.  Carr states that the way we perceive things, our concentration, and our writing has been hindered because we have adapted to this new “skimming” type of comprehension from the Internet.  My argument happens to fall more on the positive side of the spectrum, agreeing more with Clive Thompson and his theory that technology is bettering society by encouraging greater cognitive thought, the ability to relay mass amounts of information, and coherent writing. Taking both sides into conversation, I will further analyze each author’s view and then provide my own opinion on how the Internet affects human thinking.

“Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words, now I zip along the surface like a guy on a jet ski.”  In the Article, “Is Google making Us Stupid”, Carr fuels the fight against the Internet, and utilizes various rhetoric strategies such as pathos, prolepsis, and exemplification to thoroughly explain his position and prove his point. In Carr’s main claim, he believes that the Internet itself slowly deteriorates our cognitive thought and takes away our ability to focus on long passages; the skills we have learned throughout our time in school over the years. Carr provides lots of factual evidence from scientists, talking about how the brain evolves from reading books and obtaining knowledge, but as the Internet continues to grow, books are starting to become obsolete.  Carr thus voices that people today have become way too reliant on the Internet therefore disabling our brain from maturing, because according to him people only use the Internet to find answers instead of trying to learn.  For an example, a kid cannot learn just by sitting and starring at a computer, thy must be in a learning environment such as classrooms.  Carr even admits that he refers to the Internet when searching for information because he knows it is primary and most convenient source to resort to.  And he also says that sometimes he cant even read a whole paper without getting somewhat distracted or off track as well.  At a point in the article Carr mentions two bloggers, quoting them saying how they have noticed a significant shift in their cognitive thinking due to the immense amount of daily reading and writing done online. This idealizes Carr’s really good use of exemplification, as it shows that this change is a reoccurring effect happening to everyone, and its even more so convincing hearing it from bloggers who are most familiar with the Internet.  Carr also inputs personal anecdotes and touching life experiences to further make his argument more effective. But although Carr’s claims and overall argument seem pretty promising, there are others who tend to disagree, such as Clive Thompson.

Clive Thompson is a writer and journalist from Canada, and his views deviate form that of Carr’s.  Their arguments are actually polar opposites of one another.  In the article that he wrote, “Pubic Thinking,” Thompson discusses how technology further develops our writing skills and cognitive thought and is an improvement to our society.  Thompson provides various sub-claims throughout his work that support his overall argument. Them being, that the Internet clarifies our thinking processes, creates a vast increase in writing, and improves a person’s actual writing skills by granting them with an audience.  Thompson stresses and focuses a lot on how daily writing is crucial in fostering the growth of our brains.  The more people read and write on a daily basis, the more information that can be stored and relayed. And it is proven that illustrating words whether it is on a piece of paper or typing on the computer, as you are writing you are clearing your thoughts and sharpening your comprehension.  Another point that Thompson asserts is how much daily writing has increased. Today, there are numerous diversified websites with the infinite amounts of information about any topic of subject, and a mass variety of social media apps such as Twitter and Facebook with opportunities for people to blog anything and communicate with their piers. Thompson even incorporates statistics that have exemplifies how much the writing level has drastically escalated compared to before when the Internet wasn’t invented.  Lastly, Thompson talks about a new phenomenon that social scientists like to call, the “Audience Effect.”  The Audience effect is a shift in an individual’s performance when they know others are watching.  Whether someone is posting a Facebook status, tweeting, sharing an essay, even commenting on a photo, or whoever the audience may be, forces us to think more precisely and make deeper connections.  It’s having that audience, people who judge your work that composes us to want to show off our writing talents. Its just as if a sports team played without any fans, there would be nothing pushing them to perform at their full potential.  And the Internet happens to create it’s own built in global audience.   After reviewing both Thompson’s and Carr’s perspective on this topic, it has lead me to my own personal argument. 

After fully analyzing both arguments, I have come to my own conclusion on what I believe.  To me, both writers’ articles were both very strong in providing a clear claim, and specifically used different rhetorical strategies to back that claim up with a variety of evidence. Even though I think there is some truth to both altercations, I have to learn more toward what Thompson’s belief revolves around, that technology including the Internet is transcending society to a whole new intellectual level. I do recognize that there are indeed some negative side effects on the Internet, yet I still stick to my guns that Internet’s positive benefits outweigh the negatives. People, who think otherwise, mostly use examples such as television and video games to their defense.  A lot of the public is against technological devices, say that starring at a computer for too long, watching television, or playing video games for a long period of time can kill brain cells and is considered unproductive for your cognitive thought. But in reality, you can find something wrong with anything. In my personal opinion, the Internet can have be harmful and hinder your concentration on certain things as well as your memory, but only if you abuse it. For example, maybe if people didn’t overuse the Internet and other technologies for pointless reasoning, some of the negative accouterments Carr mentions possibly wouldn’t event transpire.  I am an 18 year old teenager who was born during an era of technological advancements so I have been surrounded by technology my whole life and have had first hand experience with all kinds of it.  I have been there when I would play video games for hours on end, or watch Netflix on my computer. After a certain period of time, I would feel brain dead.  And ever since the smartphone came out and every teenager in the world bought one, I felt the same effects because everyone was latched onto his or her phone like white on rice.  I have noticed a difference in my memory and feel that is has gradually declined as the years gone by, but that is nothing compared to all the beneficial contributions the Internet has made to my life.  One of the main reasons why I adore the Internet is because of how much I learn.  Yes, there are lots of bad websites that are inappropriate or contain false information, but I find all that stuff irrelevant to the argument because you would never come across all that if your soul intentions were to utilize the Internet for genuine purposes. The Internet always seems to assist me in various situations such as reading online books, watching informative videos, studying for tests, networking and communicating with friends, and researching unique topics.   This is why I agree with Thompson for the most part, because I have seen myself accustom to new styles of writing, and also seen my cognitive thought processes evolve as well. The Internet for me has been a major aspect of my life, and has also been a major addition and supplement to my success. I think the invention of the Internet has revolutionized the whole world, and despite its minor drawbacks there are just a handful of people that are oblivious to the how it really aids their everyday life like Thompson underlines in his article.

There is one thing that nobody’s views deviate on, and that is that the Internet has influenced our technological ideals, reshaped our cognitive behavior, and writing abilities.  But there will always be controversy about whether those alterations are good or bad.  For instance, Thompson believes that the Internet has exceptionally boosted our human thinking abilities, help us generate ideas, and increment the overall amount of writing. Whereas, Carr discords that the Internet deteriorates human thinking and diminishes our concentration. There is validity to both of their arguments, But I do lean more to Thompson’s theory about the benefits of the Internet form personal experience.  All the negatives side effects that Carr acknowledges, to me, only occur if the Internet is abused and exhausted. The Internet is a special tool and source for people to resort to, considering all the accessible features it possesses.

RWS100 Final Paper, Rough Draft. Entering the Conversation

Alex Schlack

Chris Werry

RWS100

November 21, 2014

Entering The Conversation Final Paper

When the Internet was invented, it had one of the biggest universal impacts on society. The Internet exceeded everyone’s expectations of what it could accomplish, growing and expanding as new technological advancements have developed.  It has become one of the most powerful aspects of our everyday lives, that there has been dependence on Google for information, and social media for networking. Nobody would argue that the Internet hasn’t remodeled our everyday life, but the main discrepancy is whether the Internet is a positive or negative innovation. There are various conflicting views on whether the Internet has beneficially affected human cognitive abilities, for example, the two writers Clive Thompson and Nicholas Carr.  Clive Thompson wrote an article called “Public Thinking,” where he discusses how the Internet has positively affected our brains.  According to Thompson, this vast increase in public writing inspired by the Internet is an important change for individuals, and that it ultimately clarifies our thinking process, generate ideas, and improves our memory.  Then Nicholas Carr on the other hand tends to think a little differently. Carr wrote the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” where he disputes Thompson’s claim.  According to Carr, there is a downside to all the reading and writing on the Internet.  Carr states that the way we perceive things, our concentration, and our writing has been hindered because we have adapted to this new “skimming” type of comprehension from the Internet.  My argument happens to fall more on the positive side of the spectrum, agreeing more with Clive Thompson and his theory that technology is bettering society by encouraging greater cognitive thought, the ability to relay mass amounts of information, and coherent writing. Taking both sides into conversation, I will further analyze each author’s view and then provide my own opinion on how the Internet affects human thinking.

“Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words, now I zip along the surface like a guy on a jet ski.”  In the Article, “Is Google making Us Stupid”, Carr fuels the fight against the Internet, and utilizes various rhetoric strategies such as pathos, prolepsis, and exemplification to thoroughly explain his position and prove his point. In Carr’s main claim, he believes that the Internet itself slowly deteriorates our cognitive thought and takes away our ability to focus on long passages; the skills we have learned throughout our time in school over the years. Carr provides lots of factual evidence from scientists, talking about how the brain evolves from reading books and obtaining knowledge, but as the Internet continues to grow, books are starting to become obsolete.  Carr thus voices that people today have become way too reliant on the Internet therefore disabling our brain from maturing, because according to him people only use the Internet to find answers instead of trying to learn.  For an example, a kid cannot learn just by sitting and starring at a computer, thy must be in a learning environment such as classrooms.  Carr even admits that he refers to the Internet when searching for information because he knows it is primary and most convenient source to resort to.   And he also says that sometimes he cant even read a whole paper without getting somewhat distracted or off track as well.  At a point in the article Carr mentions two bloggers, quoting them saying how they have noticed a significant shift in their cognitive thinking due to the immense amount of daily reading and writing done online. This idealizes Carr’s really good use of exemplification, as it shows that this change is a reoccurring effect happening to everyone, and its even more so convincing hearing it from bloggers who are most familiar with the Internet.  Carr also inputs personal anecdotes and touching life experiences to further make his argument more effective.  But although Carr’s claims and overall argument seem pretty promising, there are others who tend to disagree, such as Clive Thompson.

Clive Thompson is a writer and journalist from Canada, and his views deviate form that of Carr’s.  Their arguments are actually polar opposites of one another.  In the article that he wrote, “Pubic Thinking,” Thompson discusses how technology further develops our writing skills and cognitive thought and is an improvement to our society.   Thompson provides various sub-claims throughout his work that support his overall argument. Them being, that the Internet clarifies our thinking processes, creates a vast increase in writing, and improves a person’s actual writing skills by granting them with an audience.  Thompson stresses and focuses a lot on how daily writing is crucial in fostering the growth of our brains.  The more people read and write on a daily basis, the more information that can be stored and relayed. And it is proven that illustrating words whether it is on a piece of paper or typing on the computer, as you are writing you are clearing your thoughts and sharpening your comprehension.  Another point that Thompson asserts is how much daily writing has increased. Today, there are numerous diversified websites with the infinite amounts of information about any topic of subject, and a mass variety of social media apps such as Twitter and Facebook with opportunities for people to blog anything and communicate with their piers. Thompson even incorporates statistics that have exemplifies how much the writing level has drastically escalated compared to before when the Internet wasn’t invented.  Lastly, Thompson talks about a new phenomenon that social scientists like to call, the “Audience Effect.”  The Audience effect is a shift in an individual’s performance when they know others are watching.  Whether someone is posting a Facebook status, tweeting, sharing an essay, even commenting on a photo, or whoever the audience may be, forces us to think more precisely and make deeper connections.  It’s having that audience, people who judge your work that composes us to want to show off our writing talents. Its just as if a sports team played without any fans, there would be nothing pushing them to perform at their full potential.  And the Internet happens to create it’s own built in global audience.   After reviewing both Thompson’s and Carr’s perspective on this topic, it has lead me to my own personal argument. 

After fully analyzing both arguments, I have come to my own conclusion on what I believe.  To me, both writers’ articles were both very strong in providing a clear claim, and specifically used different rhetorical strategies to back that claim up with a variety of evidence. Even though I think there is some truth to both altercations, I have to learn more toward what Thompson’s belief revolves around, that technology including the Internet is transcending society to a whole new intellectual level. I do recognize that there are indeed some negative side effects on the Internet, yet I still stick to my guns that Internet’s positive benefits outweigh the negatives. People, who think otherwise, mostly use examples such as television and video games to their defense.  A lot of the public is against technological devices, say that starring at a computer for too long, watching television, or playing video games for a long period of time can kill brain cells and is considered unproductive for your cognitive thought. But in reality, you can find something wrong with anything. In my personal opinion, the Internet can have be harmful and hinder your concentration on certain things as well as your memory, but only if you abuse it. For example, maybe if people didn’t overuse the Internet and other technologies for pointless reasoning, some of the negative accouterments Carr mentions possibly wouldn’t event transpire.  I am an 18 year old teenager who was born during an era of technological advancements so I have been surrounded by technology my whole life and have had first hand experience with all kinds of it.  I have been there when I would play video games for hours on end, or watch Netflix on my computer.  After a certain period of time, I would feel brain dead.  And ever since the smartphone came out and every teenager in the world bought one, I felt the same effects because everyone was latched onto his or her phone like white on rice.  I have noticed a difference in my memory and feel that is has gradually declined as the years gone by, but that is nothing compared to all the beneficial contributions the Internet has made to my life.  One of the main reasons why I adore the Internet is because of how much I learn.  Yes, there are lots of bad websites that are inappropriate or contain false information, but I find all that stuff irrelevant to the argument because you would never come across all that if your soul intentions were to utilize the Internet for genuine purposes. The Internet always seems to assist me in various situations such as reading online books, watching informative videos, studying for tests, networking and communicating with friends, and researching unique topics.   This is why I agree with Thompson for the most part, because I have seen myself accustom to new styles of writing, and also seen my cognitive thought processes evolve as well. The Internet for me has been a major aspect of my life, and has also been a major addition and supplement to my success. I think the invention of the Internet has revolutionized the whole world, and despite its minor drawbacks there are just a handful of people that are oblivious to the how it really aids their everyday life like Thompson underlines in his article.

There is one thing that nobody’s views deviate on, and that is that the Internet has influenced our technological ideals, reshaped our cognitive behavior, and writing abilities.  But there will always be controversy about whether those alterations are good or bad.  For instance, Thompson believes that the Internet has exceptionally boosted our human thinking abilities, help us generate ideas, and increment the overall amount of writing. Whereas, Carr discords that the Internet deteriorates human thinking and diminishes our concentration. There is validity to both of their arguments, But I do lean more to Thompson’s theory about the benefits of the Internet form personal experience.  All the negatives side effects that Carr acknowledges, to me, only occur if the Internet is abused and exhausted. The Internet is a special tool and source for people to resort to, considering all the accessible features it possesses.

Forum Pages Analysis Extra Credit Assignment

Alex Schlack

Chris Werry

RWS100

November 17, 2014

Forum Posts Analysis’s Extra Credit Assignment

 

The first response to Carr, “Why Abundance Is Good”, written by Clay Shirky, is a really good analysis of Carr’s claims.  Overall, Shirky agrees with Carr’s main claim that these changes are significant enough to make us do something about the issue, however he does argue what it is that we need to be doing. Shirky talks a little about when Carr states that we are reading more today due to the internet, and says that its true but Carr doesn’t mention how this increase in reading form the internet has created a historical shift away from our culture.  Even as the television came to dominate culture, we continued to reassure one another that War and Peace or A La Recherche du Temps Perdu were very important.   It’s important that everyone realizes that there is a cultural sacrifice in the transformation of the media landscape, and the main question is it worth it?  Shirky gives credit to Carr for being of the most knowledgeable people when it comes to the Internet, but questions why he doesn’t propose the next step in the process. Carr lists all these thinks that the Internet has brought upon us, yet he doesn’t propose a solution to the problem. 

The second response to Carr was Why Abundance Should Breed Optimism.  Shirky starts out by pointing out that every past technology that has increased consumer material have always been beneficial to humanity.  He considers himself an optimists, and he says that everyone should breed optimism when it comes to questioning technology.  People go into too much depth and only look for things to complain about, which is kind of what he accuses Carr of doing with the Internet.  People “worry” too much about things today than we ever had in the past.  Shirky commends Carr on doing a good before and after comparison with the Nietsche case, but he does lack something really important.  Carr mentions how using the typewriter has altered the writers writing style, but what he forgot to state was if it was for the better or the worse.  As for Carr’s overall claim, Shirky happens to differ on a few points.  Shirky thinks that even if the Net did change, would our reading and comprehension go back to the way it used to be when the Net didn’t exist?  Shirky thinks that overall argument of Carr should revolve around the idea that technologies that make writing more abundant also require social structures to accompany them.  The third response to Carr is Where is the Science? Kevin Skeppy understands Carr’s claims and overall argument, but believes that Carr didn’t give enough evidence to back them up.  After reading Carr’s article, Skelly has came up with a defined calim that he asserts to be Carr’s, that surfing the web does alter our brain functions and that we are unable to go back to our old literary ways due to immense amount of reading on the Internet. Skelly says he gets the worry in all this, he gets the anecdotes and expert opinion that Carr implements into his argument, but he has not seen any scientific evidence to prove it.  Words are words and anybody can say anything, but factual evidence and numbers are the most convincing. Skelly challenges Carr to use some sufficiently and precise evidence that can be tested to prove his point more. 

The most promising response to Carr’s article was Why Abundance Should Breed Optimism by Shirky.  Shirky did a good job of challenging Carr and bringing up some really good points.  Obviously everything that Carr brings up is open for debate and doubt, but it shows how much you know about the issue when you argue something, state your own opinion and why. Shirky thinks that all major technological advancements are going to cause worry, and people are always going to be skeptic.  But the big technological innovations that work to increase reading and other consumer materials, have always been beneficial to humanity in way and bettered society. Shirky also proposes some really good questions for Carr, such as asking him if the changes toward Nietsche were actually positive, asking if the Net magically disappeared if our reading and comprehending styles were return to the way he thinks it should be.  Shirky in my opinion doesn’t agree or disagree with CArr, but challenges him a way and pointing out some of the flaws that Carr lacked in the article.

Carr Writing Assignment Final Draft

Alex Schlack

Chris Werry

RWS100

November 9, 2014

“Is Google Making Us Stupid”

            In the late 1960’s, there was an invention that is debatably considered to be the best technological innovation ever to be created in history, the Internet. The Internet has developed by becoming more advanced and complex 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 of people outweighing the positive and negative effects of the Net, 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 instantly generate answers, has altered our way of critical thinking and focusing on detail by creating a “skimming habit” in our style of reading.  In this paper, I will analyze the rhetoric strategies exemplification, ethos, and prolepsis 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 expert opinions from 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. Carr inputs these examples to show the correlation between online reading and this trending skimming less efficient style that people are evolving into. He has the expectation that the people will be convinced from hearing the same point from multiple people, especially expert bloggers were write everyday.  This presentation supports Carr’s claim that quickly finding information on the net, has been a natural substitute for deep reading that we acquire from manual research in books.

            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 logical 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 a 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 also 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 uses this example to explain to people how vulnerable and susceptible our brain is to changing, and that if we change our reading pattern, our brain and thinking process changes along with it.. Carr uses exemplification to supply the audience with credible evidence from the bloggers to back up his claim, and make his points more believable.  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.” Car brings up the argument of his opponents because he is fully aware of the skepticism of his criticism of the Internet.  Carr uses this to prevent his argument from being countered, and the accusation of 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, and being extremely persuasive attempting to change the audience’s views. He integrated these tactics extremely well, which helped him persuade the audience even more, and still manages to hold his point, and so I conclude Carr to be a success in this case. 

           

Writing assignment #2 Carr Rough Draft

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.