I recently spent a week attending
some classes for my master's program at the Portland, OR campus of George Fox
University. Since I went to high school in Lake Oswego and spent my early
married years in the same area, I was in my own stomping grounds. I had a GPS
with me, but after a couple of days it malfunctioned, and I quickly realized
that I actually had no need for the device. I was in familiar territory, able
to navigate from the recesses of my own memory, even though I hadn't lived in
the area for over 15 years.
Fast forward one month.
David had gone to Paris for the day, and when he returned I had to pick him up
from a nearby train station. The station is in the town of Amboise, about 20
minutes from Loches. Though I've been there many times, I would've been
completely lost without my GPS. We've lived in the same house for 3 years now,
and the only place I drive without the GPS is the local grocery store.
Granted, I do a lot less
driving overall in France in that I did in the States. But still, the
difference in my ability to navigate here is a little disconcerting. I've never
HAD to get around in France without a GPS, and as a result, I have become
entirely dependent upon it. Which kind of makes me feel like I'm getting
dumber. And then I remember that I've learned a new language in that
same time frame, so maybe I shouldn't reduce my intelligence to my capacity for
navigation.
Nevertheless, the
experience got me thinking about the effects of modern technological advances
on the workings of the human brain. I've been reading a book on the subject,
and frankly, I find the research to 1.) Accurately reflect my experience and
2.) Prove that the dangers are real.
In his book, The
Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, Nicholas Carr explains
how different technological advances have changed not only how humans interact
with the world and each other, but how our interaction with technology can
actually change us. For example, consider how the invention of the clock changed
human behavior. Carr writes, "In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep,
to wake up, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock.
We became a lot more scientific, but we became a bit more mechanical as
well."
Looking back through
history, how humans have stored and shared knowledge has evolved with
technological advances. Originally knowledge was passed on orally. Eventually
writing was invented, and a few elite members of society were given the
privilege of learning to read and write. Scrolls or tablets belonged to either
very wealthy people or they were communal property, stored in places such as
churches or monasteries. For reasons of limited access and limited education,
reading was a public activity, always done orally so that many could benefit.
It wasn't until the
invention of the printing press in 1439 that books became both portable and
inexpensive, thereby giving access to the masses. That technological advance
was so significant that many scholars were skeptical. They believed that such
indiscriminate access to information could have a negative effect on society as
a whole.
The printing press didn’t
just change WHO could read and WHAT could be read, it changed HOW humans
engaged in the act of reading. Instead of being a public activity, for the
first time in history, reading became a personal and private activity. People
were more reflective, contemplative, and engaged in the information that was
available to them.
The printing press also
changed how people wrote. Not only did written structure become more concise
and less repetitive, people were willing to write different things. There are
some things that one might not dare to read aloud around a campfire, but would
delight to read at home alone. Thus, the reason for the lament over the ills of
the printing press.
Fast forward 550 years.
Passing by inventions such as radio and television, we arrive at the age of the
Internet. Like books, radio and TV are one-way media--information can only flow
in one direction. The Internet changed not only how we are sharing knowledge,
but made knowledge sharing bi-directional--or rather multi-directional as
many can interact with the same subject simultaneously.
While reading books is a
slow, linear process, reading on the Internet has become multi-dimensional,
with links offering unlimited distractions. In fact, the Net is essentially one
long stream of distractions. And while all of that input and information is
stimulating, it is changing the way humans work and think. Here are just a few
of the shocking conclusions that Carr draws from results of numerous research
endeavors:
"The Net's cacophony of stimuli short-circuits both conscious and unconscious thought, preventing our minds from thinking either deeply or creatively."
"In reading online, Maryanne Wolf says, we sacrifice the facility that makes deep reading possible. We revert to being 'mere decoders of information.' Our ability to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction remains largely disengaged."
"We willingly accept the loss of concentration and focus, the division of our attention and the fragmentation of our thoughts, in return for the wealth of compelling or at least diverting information we receive. Tuning out is not an option many of us would consider."
Attentiveness,
memorization, and deep thinking are becoming lost arts--and their loss has
critical implications for our ability to be creative and innovative. But it is
not only our intellect that suffers. It turns out that our ability to show
empathy and compassion is also diminished by distractions.
So The Shallows has
me rethinking not only how much time I spend online, but how I spend that time.
I find that I can hardly sit through an entire movie at home without checking
email, playing Words with Friends, or browsing Facebook. The distractions don't
have to come looking for me, I go looking for them. And now that I know that
such behavior is actually re-wiring my brain, I'm concerned. And I plan to do
something about it.
