Add to My MSN

Reading Blogs Might Make You a Better Person

6/8/2010 1:22:49 PM

Tags: Media, The Awl, The Atlantic, internet, intelligence

internet

Writing for The Awl, Maria Bustillos argues convincingly against recent suggestions that the cognitive habits enforced by web browsing are making people dumb. Taking on Nicholas Carr’s Atlantic article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” (recently expanded into a book), Bustillos dismantles one of Carr’s main ideas. As she says:

Hyperlinks, the proliferation of which Mr. Carr largely blames for his mental infirmity, are in no way different from footnotes. Footnotes, too, demand “microseconds of decision-making attention.” Just as a footnote does, a hyperlink beckons you away from the main text in order to examine tangentially-related but relevant material. Exactly like a hyperlink, a footnote often has the effect of sending you down a series of rabbit holes, from which you emerge hours later, armed with a dozen other books—that is, if you want to investigate the subject in fine detail. If you don’t, then by all means, you can skip the footnotes.

So do footnotes also “sap cognitive power from the reading process”?

Heavily annotated works have been useful for centuries to students of every discipline we’ve got, and their distraction-potential, though clear, is completely eclipsed by the invaluable advantage of access to a ton of carefully-signposted material that can greatly ease the conduct of serious study. It’s well worth the extra effort of concentration; if you want the goods, you’ll put up with the cost.

Carr had addressed the comparison of footnotes and hyperlinks, noting that

[u]nlike footnotes, to which they’re sometimes likened, hyperlinks don’t merely point to related works; they propel you toward them.

But Bustillos isn’t having it:

The fogginess of this reasoning—what does this mean, ‘propel’?—is evident throughout the original essay. The means by which one navigates through text are consistent within the medium—you page through all the pages of a book, and you click through all the pages of a website. For some reason, “propulsion” is supposed to be bad for you and “pointing” isn’t, but Carr doesn’t even attempt to explain why.

Source: The Awl

Image by Anonymous9000, licensed under Creative Commons.



Related Content

Memo to Media Moguls

Memo to Media Moguls February 6, 2002 Kate Garsombke Memo to Media Moguls: Give Us Our 'Left...

Media Watchdogs Caught Napping

Media Watchdogs Caught Napping March 24, 2003 Leander Kahney Wired News When Dan Rather spea...

Publishers Need to Complain Less

Akashic Books Founder Johnny Temple says that folks in the publishing world need to stop complaining...

I Would Have Written This Earlier (But I Was Busy Instant Messaging)

For me, getting work done with an IM program open is like mini-golfing against a guy with an air hor...

Content Tools




Post a comment below.

 

Gregg DesElms_1
6/9/2010 4:39:40 PM
I've given lots of thought over the years to Carr's way of thinking, and I'm afraid he's right; and Ms Bustillos, godbless'er, is wrong. Footnotes in printed text are only superficially analogous to hyperlinks; and the devil is in that superficiality. One looks only longingly at footnotes, wishing, perhaps, that one had the footnoted work in hand with which to distract oneself. A hyperlink, on the other hand, makes the distraction real with the help of technology simply not present in a footnote on the printed page... and therein lies the critical difference which destroys the analogy. The problem, here, too, may be generational. I don't know, of course, but I'll bet that Mr. Carr is considerably older than Ms Bustillos; and that perhaps Ms Bustillos is either part of, or barely older than the current generation of young people who seem so capable of multi-tasking as to make spin the heads of those much older, such as I. And so for such as her, perhaps, the distraction is not so distracting as for such as Mr. Carr and myself. That said, studies show that such distractions, while perhaps more tolerable, from acclimation, to the young, are nevertheless just as actually distracting to them, after all, as they are to the old; and so now is being created an entire generation of future leaders who think better broadly than deeply. And that's sad. _______________________________ Gregg L. DesElms Napa California, USA gregg at greggdeselms dot com

Brian Beveridge
6/9/2010 3:54:44 PM
Much has been written lately about the growing problem of attention deficit problems in adults. This debate reminds me somewhat of watching young children in a grocery store. Children are often highly reactive to the psychological cues used in product packaging and consequently can be seen running from item to item and grabbing things for momma to buy. This seems similar to the behavior described in these essays; specifically the inability in the reader to not react upon seeing blue text in a paragraph. The issue may be more related to our growing impatience and need for constant gratification. Isn't Mr. Carr blaming opportunity rather than taking responsibility for his own actions?

Maria Bustillos
6/9/2010 2:17:18 PM
Ahoy there! I enjoyed this comment (and thank you so much, Mr. Rowe, for the link.) Footnotes and hyperlinks are equivalent to the exact extent that they create a miniature interruption in the flow of reading. They are both signposts, to be followed or not, and Mr. Carr points to studies claiming that repeated interruptions in the flow of thought while reading impair cognitive ability. That's why Laura Miller, in her Salon review, placed all the links at the end of her piece, and that's the topic around which much of the discussion of this book has revolved. Naturally, the experience is somewhat different once we choose to follow, at which point all kinds of other factors come into play.

Emma_4
6/9/2010 9:30:28 AM
To me, Bustillo seems to be ingoring an obvious difference between hyperlinks and footnotes. "Propel" is a vague term, yes, but its aptness can be seen clearly when you think about the functional difference between a link and a footnote, the most striking difference being in terms of accessibility. A hyperlink's tangent is only a click away and potentially links to any other piece of information on the internet. To follow a footnote - to go so far as to come home with the stack of a dozen extra books on a given topic as Bustillo suggests - requires a lot more work on the part of the reader. Consequently, Bustillo's "decision making attnetion" required by a footnote is not the same of that required by a hyperlink. What is at risk with a click? Geting you one reversible click closer to developing carpel tunnel? Think of the time and energy required to dig up the titles in a footnote and peruse them. A person has to have a high level of interest in a topic to commit to that endeavor. How many of us these days actually make that commitment? Carr may not provide the reasoning behind his argument, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.






Pay Now & Save $5!
First Name: *
Last Name: *
Address: *
City: *
State/Province: *
Zip/Postal Code:*
Country:
Email:*
(* indicates a required item)
Canadian subs: 1 year, (includes postage & GST). Foreign subs: 1 year, . U.S. funds.
Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
Non US and Canadian Subscribers - Click Here

Want to gain a fresh perspective? Read stories that matter? Feel optimistic about the future? It's all here! Utne Reader offers provocative writing from diverse perspectives, insightful analysis of art and media, down-to-earth news and in-depth coverage of eye-opening issues that affect your life.

Save Even More Money By Paying NOW!

Pay now with a credit card and take advantage of our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. You save an additional $5 and get 4 issues of Utne Reader for only $31.00 (USA only).

Or Bill Me Later and pay just $36 for 4 issues of Utne Reader!