Response to Cascio, Carr and Postman

I began by reading the Get Smarter article since I had previously read the Google article by Nicholas Carr, thinking it would be helpful to read the new article and then review what I had already read to get the best perspective. As I worked through the Get Smart article, I felt myself getting a little angry and maybe a little defensive. I think the first thing that bothered me about the article was the tone of the author. I felt that he was kind of speaking down to the audience – perhaps that’s just me. I much preferred Carr’s approach with fully disclosing that he might not be right and we had perfect reason to question his arguments.

All that aside, I found the Cascio article to be somewhat disturbing in its view of the future. Apparently Cascio anticipates this reaction as he remarks, “ looking a generation ahead might seem surreal and dizzying. But remember: people living in, say 2030 will have lived every moment from now until then…” I can see how the scenario he describes become easier to accept when looked at it over the course of 20 or so years – we have seen incredibly significant changes in the last 20 years and it all seems kind of normal on a day to day basis. Yet I cannot buy into some of the basic premises of his philosophy. For example, his idea that Twitter can eventually learn what messages we pay attention to, and eventually be able to recognize our own “ambiguous desires” is too much like the world of Feed for me and something I simply don’t desire. I also do not agree with his ideas about using pharmaceuticals to increase our mental capacities, similar to steroid use among athletes. “From the perspective of those who find that they’re much more productive using this form of enhancement, it’s no more cheating than getting a faster computer, or a better education.” I just don’t agree with this – call me old fashioned, if you like.

Despite my objections to parts of the article, I do agree with some of what Cascio says. I do believe that the increased use of technology does improve certain functions of our brains and that fluidity in thinking may be more important for the future than the idea that “accumulated information alone is a hallmark of intelligence.” But like Carr, I do think the technology is certain affecting our capabilities for deep reading. I certainly feel differently about how I read since becoming tuned into technology. I have to laugh at myself – I recently began a subscription to the Economist and when I looked at an issue that had just come in, I remarked to my husband how I really like how they have short snippets of major news events at the beginning of the magazine so I can get a sense of what is going on in the world without having to read all the lengthy article. Carr is at least somewhat critical of this format that the NY Times adopted recently.

I am glad that Carr point out that there is a fear of a loss of intelligence with each new groundbreaking tool that comes out (and perhaps his concerns are simply part of this backlash): Socrates with the fear of how the written word would lessen people’s need to carry as much information in their memories, for example. However, I do feel that as technology becomes more permeated throughout our society, we lose some of our sense of meaningful relationship and interactions, both human-to-human and human to nature.

Regarding Postman, I got the sense from Chapters 3 and 4 that Postman would feel uncomfortable with the direction that the technology could take us in if we just become plugged in mindless shells of people walking around. However, if we can improve our cognitive functioning, as Cascio envisions, how exciting that could be for public discourse.