i'll tell you what's stupid.

the funny thing is, as i went to read the article, my roommate, who is also conveniently in my class said verbatim, "let's read cosmo instead of the article." i agreed. the confessions portion was interesting, but i have submitted my attention to the article. it is cleverly titled, "is google making us stupid?" i found the full version on google. ironic. i did have a point to why i started off my blog in such a way. i think there are more distractions laying around than just the internet. and you can find tons if you really don't want to do something. i have no problem finding them.

but before i start, i'm going to look for the books on amazon.

the way i see it is a fluctuation or as carr puts it, a "midst of a sea change in the way we read and think" and i honestly don't think it's a bad thing. we need more information now and we need it at our fingertips.

i 100% agree with the point carr makes with his anecdote of Fredrich Nietzsche. the tools that we use to write with absolutely directly affect the language and style that gets written. the essay i had to write and hand to the professor in class is less dense and intricate than the essay that i wrote at home on my laptop. i am able to just cut an paste the paragraph that really belongs in the beginning rather than brackets and an arrow that presents my writing to the professor as messy and unorganized.

why would you want to sit around and read information that you don't need, when you can sift through it to find the core of the information you can use. even if you wanted to go to the library, you have to first use a search engine that will direct you in the right location--a search engine that works the same way google does. like my mom the other day. it was my cousin's birthday, i know he's not much of a talker, so i just texted him. my mom argued with me that i should call him, that "back in her day" if she wanted to talk to someone she had to call them. so i, being the witty person i am and loving to argue, responded that in the past if she said that, i'm sure my grandpa would have said, "well back in my day we had to write letters if we wanted to wish someone a happy birthday." and before letters, there was visiting a person. my point is, she thinks that a phone call would be better than a text message. i argued that well in her time, a letter would have been better than a phone call. but it's just how time changes. a text message is faster, more efficient and to the point. our thought process is constantly shifting and fluctuating, as is technology.

perhaps Carr is right when he claims that the adoption of "new intellectual technologies is reflected in the changing metaphors" we use to express ourselves and our thoughts. and perhaps the internet is "programming us" which makes sense when he begins his article with The Space Odyssey, which is a movie about a computer on a space ship that gains so much intelligence it becomes smarter than the passengers and begins to take over.

the example of the outrage over the printing press reflects my mom's dislike of my text message and the dispute over the internet. i'm glad i can be skeptical of you skepticism, Carr. i'm not disagreeing, maybe it's just not such a bad thing.