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.
No comments:
Post a Comment