Net Wisdom?

By: Matthew Felling
Topics: 4th Estate Debate

(AP (file))

Is the Internet making us dumber?

David Brooks implied as much a few weeks ago in his New York Times column "The Outsourced Brain," when he embraced the fact that new technologies and the Internet were doing all our intellectual heavy lifting nowadays:

My G.P.S. goddess liberated me from this drudgery. She enabled me to externalize geographic information from my own brain to a satellite brain, and you know how it felt? It felt like nirvana.

Through that experience I discovered the Sacred Order of the External Mind. I realized I could outsource those mental tasks I didn't want to perform. Life is a math problem, and I had a calculator.

Until that moment, I had thought that the magic of the information age was that it allowed us to know more, but then I realized the magic of the information age is that it allows us to know less.

I filed that away in my mental attic at the time, tucking it away between Jeanne Zelasko's clich?s during the World Series and oddball jack-o-lantern designs.

But then it resurfaced when I read an interview with law professor Cass Sunstein where he basically agreed with the essence of Brooks' remarks, but was nowhere near as sanguine about it. As the Salon dot com interviewer opened:

Freedom of choice is not always good for democracy. This observation is at the heart of University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein's book "Republic.com 2.0" (an update of "Republic.com" in 2001), which argues that our country's political discourse is fracturing in the information age. Sure, the Internet has been a boon to democracy in all sorts of ways, Sunstein acknowledges -- but if new technology gives us unprecedented access to information, it also gives us more ways to avoid information we don't like. Conservatives are increasingly seeking only conservative views, liberals are seeking only liberal views, and never the twain shall meet.

While this isn't necessarily the same as saying the Internet and technology is making us dumber, the common thread in both insights is that we're not as sharp as we used to be. Where once we would have the mental pliability to reason out through an opposing view – or, in Brooks' case, a different travel route – we're losing that now.

And yes, I'll grant you that 'sharp' is a pretty nebulous term. But I think that by granting over a certain amount of our mental energy to an electronic box, we're losing some critical thinking ability. The moment "google" morphed from a noun to a verb, it was clear we weren't using the Internet as a reference tool (remember the encyclopedias at the library?) as much as a crutch.

American democracy was born in barroom arguments in Philadelphia and Boston, with people challenging each other's views, priorities and political philosophies. Can you imagine Thomas Paine interrupting a debate over a pint to see if the tavern had wi-fi?

I'm probably going to get my Blog Guy Pass revoked for pointing all of this out, but it's important to remember to make the effort to read or watch or listen to something we disagree with every once in awhile to keep those mental muscles toned. Flabby bodies are one thing, but flabby minds are even worse.

4 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by tomtraubert-2009 November 10, 2007 10:25 PM EST: Well, I seek out information on the web because people like you and David Brooks were making me dumber. You were doing that by endlessly repeating unsubstantiated beltway opinion as though it were fact. Your quoting of a dull-witted lightweight like David Brooks actually lowers my opinion of you.

Felling, it is actually YOU who needs to venture out of your little cozy beltway cubbyhole. Who are you to presume what I read?; Reply to this comment


by mattcat25 November 10, 2007 3:14 AM EST: The only thing I%u2019m able to express on if internet users are subjecting themselves to debasing their own propensity would be:

Eiflgifhwapyel!
And majpksieoslg!; Reply to this comment


by memekiller November 9, 2007 12:55 PM EST: Again, the left isn''t the right. The group I belong to wants access to all POV so we can make informed decisions. I am beholden to no particular policy; I chose my side based on the mode of inquiry.

You never hear a conservative complain about FOX because it always tells them what you want to hear. I don''t know any liberal who''s happy with any news outlet because, despite having reality firmly in our camp, there haven''t been many willing to venture out and state the obvious.

Olberman, as you pointed out, occasionally attacks Bush when warranted, but I sensed a tone mystification at his popularity. Well, it''s because he occasionally attacks Bush when warranted. That doesn''t mean he''ll never say anything bad about Pelosi, nor do we want that.

In the run up to war, I felt like I was the only one who thought this might be a bad idea. "Objective" reporters treated this "drinking the Koolaid" with barely concealed contempt. Since the first sign of insanity is that everyone is crazy but you, I began to worry. Then on the Internet, I realized, I may be crazy, but at least I''m not the only one. Blogs provided a viewpoint I couldn''t get from the networks or cable, pulled a seat up to the table instead of waiting to for our invite to the dinner party.; Reply to this comment


by memekiller November 8, 2007 11:07 PM EST: I like you. I do. And not because I agree with you. In fact, I tend to spend more of my time at mainstream outlets where I get to go plerbius-a-mono with the MSM, to initiate some of that critical thinking their reporting is lacking. What bothers Broder is that we can participate rather than mindlessly downloading David''s bogus ideas.

How horrible it must be, that in comments I can remind him that, after witnessing the horrible politicizing of our intelligence community by political operatives, he: "For decades, the U.S. intelligence community has propogated the myth that it possesses analytical methods that must be insulated pristinely from the hurly-burly world of politics." Then called for more politicization.

That was not passed onto me. I read that in his column, which I did not read because he agreed with me. When I wanted to find it just now, I googled it, rather than digging through clippings I stored in the closet.

Amazing, how I''m letting others do the thinking for me by actually challenging them, critically.

I didn''t flee to blogs because they don''t link to opposing views they read and criticize. I fled to blogs because you DON''T present opposing views.; Reply to this comment