Remember the idea that playing games was “rewiring” the brains of young people. As I reported this claim, at least as I understood the position of researchers and writers (e.g., Prensky), the core suggestion was that the brain adapts to the stimulus environment in which it functions. The consequence is not necessarily a more or less effective brain, but a brain adapted to the demands of the environment.
I read a recent piece in the Atlantic Monthly (Carr – Is Google Making Us Stupid?) that takes a similar position. Carr begins his article by describing insights into his own reading habits. He reports that he seems to be unable to focus for more than a few pages while he could previously read for hours and become deeply engrossed in a book. I was glad to read this description. I was beginning to worry that my own personal observations were a sign of my advancing age.
As I understand Carr’s argument, the concern is that “deep reading” is different from searching for quick answers because of the additional thinking that readers do. They struggle with complex ideas and perhaps incomplete explanations and in doing so built better personal representations. We presently seem to be seeking immediate, but specific information. The difference between deep reading and information seeking seems similar to something I have been writing about lately – knowledge telling vs. knowledge building. It might be argued that we read online as a type of “personal” knowledge telling – in this case a representation based on easy search with little building of understanding (I have always liked the distinction between information and knowledge – perhaps this is another way to represent what has happened – we have become satisfied with information). To me, there is nothing about online technology per se that requires this shallowness, but rather it is the way in which we prefer to use online resources and the format we encourage “authors” to use that prioritizes information over understanding.
I wonder if the existence and use of Twitter exemplifies further slippage. Now even blog entries are too long. Thoughts must be expressed in 140 characters or less.
Presently, the research on this topic is very sparse. Carr mentions one interesting sounding study, but the online report contained no citations. I will have to see if I can run this down.
