The Garden of Five Lions

            This afternoon, I spent an hour on a bench in The Garden of Five Lions, appreciating the beauty around me and pondering the power of reflection. Although this garden may be one of the most peaceful settings on campus, I rarely see Richmond students there. As I ran my toes through the grass, I gazed at the beautiful red tulips in full bloom and listened to the birds chirping above and the water gurgling in the fountain. I felt the warmth of the sun with a comforting breeze. This world was real.
            The world of this garden is more real than the consensual hallucination of virtual worlds and social networking websites, as I was able to use my five senses. In a virtual world or on the Internet, you may be able to hear a fountain gurgling, but you can’t put your hand in the water to feel its coolness. You may be able to see a tulip, but you can’t smell it or touch its soft petals. You may be able to watch birds fly and sing above you, but you can’t see them dive for crumbs that you throw for them. Our five senses were created as a means to engage in the real world, not in a virtual world.

           This semester, I have thoroughly enjoyed learning about cyberspace in terms of its history and culture as well as resistance to and the future of technology. When the course began, I knew nothing about virtual worlds, artificial intelligence, neural implants, or the history of technological monopolies. I do wish that we had spent less time learning about virtual worlds, as I don’t think that humans are making the exodus there in the near future. I would have liked to learn more about the social, psychological, and cultural effects of technology. For my research paper, I read part of Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, and wish that we had read this book in class as I think that it is applicable to the millennial generation. It is important to be aware of how spending hours on the Internet can alter and potentially harm the human brain. 

“Be the change you want to see in the world.” – Gandhi 

            The last time I spent an hour alone, reflecting in nature, was on a beach on the island of Zanzibar off the coast of Tanzania. I remember that I appreciated feeling disconnected and undisturbed. I was alone with my thoughts, as I was earlier this afternoon, and able to think about my experiences in Africa. Two years ago, my reflection inspired my passion to help save African children with HIV/AIDS. Today, I thought about my resistance to the feed and the exodus to the virtual world, and how I hope that we don’t become completely reliant on technology. Maybe this will give birth to a new passion: to encourage people to value the importance of real human interaction and to resist the increasing prevalence of technology in our lives.

Where in the Word Are We Going?

        As I read Edward Castronova’s Exodus to the Virtual World, I thought to myself, online fun should NOT be changing reality. Practical virtual reality already immerses 20 to 30 million people in worlds of fantasy. It is projected that over the next generation or two, hundreds of millions more will immerse themselves. My reaction to this statistic is no, no and no. I’m sorry, but I will never spend hours interacting in cyberspace, nor will I allow my children or my children’s children to join the exodus to the virtual world.        

        Castronova argues that economic activity, political, social, and cultural activity will migrate to the virtual world. Well, I strongly hope that virtual worlds will forever lack the social, cultural, and educational aspects of reality. When someone spends hours and hours inside playing online games, I question whether that person is experiencing personal growth, socially, culturally, and intellectually. I understand that when you immerse yourself in massive multiplayer online role-playing games, you are interacting with other human beings. However, nothing compares to real human interaction, face-to-face conversation. Face-to-face interaction contributes to human personal growth.

        Virtual worlds are not real or genuine.

- You will not develop cognitive skills or critical thinking in a MMORPG.

- There is no real human interaction. You will fail to develop proper social skills.

- You will not learn about the environment and nature in the virtual world.

- This world lacks cultural immersion.

       In the future, I fear that the crucial experiences that foster positive childhood development will become obsolete. When I think of my childhood, I remember family game nights (playing monopoly or apples to apples, NOT online games), traveling to foreign countries, playing outside on the swing set with my neighborhood friends, learning how to share with others, reading books, playing dress-up, and spending quality time with my family and friends. I never played video games or spent time on the computer. I believe that my childhood development would have been severely altered or non-existent if it had consisted of only playing online games.

        Stop and think – Do we really want our children and our children’s children to immerse themselves in virtual worlds and online games for hours everyday? No. We want to help children foster positive social, cultural, and intellectual development in a traditional sense. We can’t let virtual worlds change our perception of reality. We need to stop the exodus to the virtual world. 

Generation DotNet - Project 3 Final

            With the Internet acting as the current communication and information medium of choice, American students are becoming less able to read, analyze, and write with purpose and clarity. They are subject to the “morbid symptoms” of our change to a proto-electronic society where the Internet is capable of conditioning sense and sensibilities (Birkerts). As a result, as author Nicholas Carr describes, “a new intellectual ethic is taking hold” and “ the pathways in our brains are once again being rerouted” (Carr 77). As the Internet reweaves our social and cultural web, it is negatively impacting the intellectual capabilities of Internet users across the country, particularly members of Generation Y, also known as Generation DotNet.
            Across the world, renowned scientists, authors, and literary critics are raising awareness about the potential damaging influence of the Internet on intelligence. In The Gutenberg Elegies, Sven Birkerts expresses his belief that our educational systems are in decline as students are less proficient at reading and comprehending texts, and test scores are falling at an alarming rate. He sees language erosion, the flattening of historical perspectives, and the waning of the private self as issues related to the use of technology. Language erosion results from fewer students reading books, while the flattening of historical perspective results from students viewing the past from only one perspective and as irrelevant to the future. In addition, the connectedness of the Net contributes to “electronic collectivization,” which Birkerts believes has fueled the loss of the individuated self and autonomy among young people (Birkerts). Similarly, Howard Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard University, feels that the lives and minds of young people are becoming fragmented given the plethora of connections, networks, and messages.  Their identities are less stable because “times for reflection, introspection, solitude are scarce” (Brockman 276). Like Birkerts and Gardner, Haim Harari, an Israeli theoretical physicist, is concerned with the harmful impact of the Internet on intelligence and he points to two significant changes. First, messages have become terse due to social networking, texting and e-mail. Second, the role of factual knowledge in the thinking process has diminished as the Internet enables users to access facts quickly through sites such as Wikipedia and Google. As human reliance on technology and the Internet increases, it has been hypothesized that there is a negative effect on human intelligence. This hypothesis is supported by the research of Mark Bauerlein, author of The Dumbest Generation, as well as data released from scientific studies and national surveys.

         In The Dumbest Generation, Bauerlein discusses the destructive impact of the digital age on Generation Y, specifically in creating young Americans who are disinterested and cut off from the realities of our world. As students spend countless hours on sites such as Facebook, which like other social networking sites has little educational value, their level of intelligence does not increase because “the web is a consumer habitat, not an educational one” (Bauerlein 149). As a result, they lack knowledge in history, civics, math, science, and the fine arts. The statistics do not lie. In 2004, the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that the percentage of seventeen-year-olds who “never or hardly ever” read for enjoyment had more than doubled from 9 percent in 1984 to 19 percent in 2004 (Department of Education, United States). The more a person chooses not to read, the more a person is unable to read and the intellectual development of the young mind stalls. Also, research has supported that children who grow up in homes with numerous books ultimately receive three years more schooling than children from bookless homes. This study, in which parents’ education, occupation, and socioeconomic class were held constant, suggests that the presence of books in homes has significant educational benefits (Kelley et al.). In addition, the Chronicle of Higher Education released data from a 2006 survey of college professors, which found that only 6 percent of the professors surveyed believed that entering students were “very well prepared in writing” (Chronicle of Higher Education). It is evident that changes in technology have led to new patterns of thinking, especially with respect to reading and writing, among young people.

            How is the Internet specifically responsible for the degradation of student writing and the decline in student reading? When writing a paper, students frequently turn immediately to the Internet to search for existing information rather than pursue new ideas using their imagination. Thus, the Net satisfies immediate needs at the expense of deeper thinking and understanding. Also, the creation of Microsoft Word and spell-check prevent the improvement of a student’s writing skills. A post on the USA Today blog, “Generation Next,” noted that young people today suffer from “e-literacy” as “we can’t spell and we don’t know synonyms because there’s less need to know. What smart person would devote hours to learning words that can be accessed at the click of a button? Spell-check can spell. Shift +F7 produces synonyms” (Bauerlein 66). Thus, people's writing and thinking skills are deteriorating as their reliance on spell-check and the Internet grows exponentially. In addition to studies related to reading and writing, the theories of well-known critics and authors, as well as scientific research studies, have shown that the Internet has affected the neurological pathways of the human brain.

            The Internet can impact brain development, as neurological studies have provided evidence that it can restructure neural pathways, thus impacting cognition. For example, one published study on online research habits suggests that the Net is changing the way we read and think. As part of a five-year research program, experimenters examined computer logs that documented the behavior of visitors on two websites that provided access to e-books, journal articles, and other written information. The results indicated that the visitors skimmed frequently, switched from one source to another and generally read no more than one or two pages of a source before switching to another site. The researchers concluded that these Internet users are not reading online in the traditional sense, but instead, “‘power browse’” (Carr). Unfortunately, when people read online, they become “‘mere decoders of information,’” our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged” (Carr). Due to the brain elasticity of humans, the Internet’s instant availability and overload of information has the potential to reprogram people at a biological level.

      In 2007, Gary Small, a UCLA professor of psychiatry, conducted a study with 24 volunteers to research the effect of Internet searching on brain activity. Half the participants had used the Internet daily, while the other half had little experience with this technology. At the outset of the study, all participants performed Internet searches while undergoing fMRI scans which recorded changes in brain activity. After the initial scan, the participants spent one hour a day for seven days over a two-week period on the Internet. Then, the participants received a second scan and the fMRI results indicated activation in new brain regions for the inexperienced participants, specifically regions related to working memory and decision-making. After a brief period of time, the inexperienced participants’ brains were rewired as they demonstrated activation patterns similar to those who had previously used the Internet daily (Champeau). These results show how quickly and extensively the Net is able to restructure people’s neural pathways. Small concluded that, “the current explosion of digital technology is not only changing the way we live and communicate, but is rapidly and profoundly altering our brains” (Small). However, as the Internet leads to extensive brain activity, humans may be subject to cognitive overload. The psychological term cognitive load refers to the information flowing into a person’s working memory. If the information load exceeds the brain’s ability to process and store it, the information will not be retained or be connected to other memories. Extensive brain activity may lead to cognitive overload, which prevents humans from converting new information into conceptual knowledge (Carr). In 2005, psychologists at Carelton University in Canada found that “the increased demands of decision-making and visual processing in the hypertext impaired reading performance…many features of the hypertext resulted in increased cognitive load” (DeStefano & LeFevre). Scientific studies also reveal additional effects, both positive and negative, that Internet use is having on human intellect.

            In contrast to those critics who argue that the Internet negatively influences human cognition, technophiles Ray Kurzweil and Nicholas Negroponte believe that the Internet is enhancing, not degrading, human intelligence. A research study at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies found that Internet use helps humans to develop “fluid intelligence – the ability to find meaning in confusion and solve new problems, independent of acquired knowledge” (Anderson). This research study supports the idea that the Internet and its resources can shift cognitive capacities. Humans will not have to memorize as much information, so more time will be available to improve critical thinking and analytical skills. In addition, Ray Kurzweil, an American author, inventor, and futurist, believes that machines will attain human-level intelligence and humans will become transhumanists, incorporating more technology to become smarter. Similarly, Nicholas Negroponte, founder of MIT’s Media Lab and the One Laptop per Child Association (OLPC) supports the use of technology. Negroponte, who wrote the bestselling book Being Digital, is a digital optimist and feels that the Internet will improve human life. One of OLPC’s projects was to provide computers to children in developing countries, as Negroponte believes that computers are “a window into the world and a tool with which to think (Trafton). They are a wonderful way for all children to ‘learn learning’ through independent interaction and exploration” (Trafton). As one might expect, there are arguments that technology and Internet use have the potential to improve human intelligence. However, the results of many research studies support the idea that the Internet is negatively affecting human cognition.

            Studies by psychologists, neurobiologists, educators, and Web designers about the impact of the Internet on how humans think all point to the same conclusion: “when we go online, we enter an environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learning” (Carr 115). The Internet can serve as an interruption system, as it scatters human attention. As people use the Net, they will often glance at their email inbox to check for new messages or stop reading an article to check for Facebook updates. These breaks in a person’s concentration will burden his or her working memory, thus influencing cognition. In 2009, Patricia Greenfield, a developmental psychologist at UCLA, reviewed over 40 studies of the effects of different types of Internet media on intelligence and learning ability. These studies supported the belief that media weakens human ability for critical understanding and underpins “mindful knowledge acquisition, inductive analysis, critical thinking, imagination, and reflection” (Greenfield). Similarly, Jacob Vigdor and Helen Ladd of Duke’s Stanford School of Public Policy recently examined computer use among a half-million 5th through 8th grade students in North Carolina and found that the use of home computers and Internet access was correlated to considerable declines in math and reading scores. The online world, which Cory Doctorow describes as an “ecosystem of interruption technologies,” has contributed to lower student test stores (Vigdor, Ladd). Even though the Internet allows its users instant access to immense amounts of information, it is turning them into shallow, easily distracted thinkers. 

            The Internet has a negative influence on the attention span and the ability of users to foster ideas. As Nicholas Carr describes, “what we’re experiencing is, in a metaphorical sense, a reversal of the early trajectory of civilization: we are evolving from being cultivators of personal knowledge to being hunters and gatherers in the electronic data forest” (Carr 135). As humans navigate the Web, every time they shift their attention their brain has to reorient itself, which strains mental resources. In particular, the Google search engine serves as a distraction to Internet users as it continues to encourage them to click as often as possible, gaining hold of their intellectual lives; “Hyperlinks are designed to grab our attention. Their value as navigational tools is inextricable from the distraction they cause” (Carr 90). It is impossible to be attentive and learn when a person is constantly bombarded by distractions as they move from site to site. As a result, the Net’s abundance of stimuli undermines human thought, which prevents the ability to think with creativity and attentiveness. In addition, users oftentimes visit too many websites and receive too many messages and ultimately feel overwhelmed by the online experience. They lack the ability to manage their time properly in the face of this plethora of information and become unfocused and less able to complete intellectually demanding tasks.

            “As revolutionary as it may be, the Net is best understood as the latest in a long series of tools that have helped mold the human mind” (Carr 115). Unfortunately, the Internet has not necessarily molded the human mind in a positive way. The evidence cited in this paper confirms that for most young Internet users, members of Generation Y, “the Web hasn’t made them better readers and writers, sharper interpreters and more discerning critics, more knowledgeable citizens and tasteful consumers” (Bauerlein 110). Instead, the Internet may be the greatest enemy to deep thinking since the invention of the television. The United States needs the Millennials to become intelligent men and women who aspire to be strong and wise political and military leaders, journalists, teachers, judges, scholars, critics, and artists. The future resides in Generation Y or Generation DotNet, and it is critical that we are aware of and address the “morbid symptoms” of the Internet in this proto-electronic era.        
         

Works Cited:

Anderson, Janna, and Lee Rainie. "Does Google Make Us Stupid?" Pew Internet & American Life 

            Project (2010).

Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age.

            Winchester: Faber and Faber, 1994.

Big Think. Entrepreneurship: The New Liberal Arts?. Ray Kurzweil. Big Think. Web

Brockman, John. Is the Internet Changing the Way You Think?: The Net’s Impact on Our

            Minds and Future. New York: HarperCollins, 2011.

Brooks, David. "The Medium Is the Medium." The New York Times 2010. The New York

            Times. Web.

Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York:

            W.W. Norton, 2010.

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic (2008). The Atlantic. July

            2008. Web.

Champeau, Rachel. "First-time Internet Users Find Boost in Brain Function After Just One Week."   

            UCLA Newsroom (2009).

Chronicle of Higher Education. “What Professors and Teachers Think: A Perception Gap over 

            Students’ Preparation” (10 Mar 2006).

Department of Education, United States. NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of 

            Performance in Reading and Mathematics (2005).

Greenfield, Patricia M. "Technology and Informal Education: What Is Taught, What Is Learned." 

            Science 323.5910: 69-71.            

Kelley, Jonathan, Joanna Sikora, and Donald Treiman. "Family Scholarly Culture and Educational 

            Success: Books and Schooling in 27 Nations." Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 

            28.2 (2010): 171-97. SciVerse. Web.

Small, Gary. "Meet Your IBrain." Scientific American (2008).

Trafton, Anne. "$100 Laptop Idea Taking Off." MIT News. 5 Oct. 2005. Web.

Vigdor, Jacob L., and Helen F. Ladd. "Scaling the Digital Divide: Home Computer Technology and 

            Student Achievement." The National Bureau of Economic Research (2010).

Digital Story Narrative

            She was described as smart, charming, and as someone who enjoyed life with an energy that only the young possess. Her name was Phoebe Prince.

            In the fall of 2009, Phoebe moved from Ireland to western Massachusetts – to a new town, a new high school, a new country, and a new culture. Her parents moved to Massachusetts because they wanted Phoebe to “experience America.” However, America was unwelcoming and unkind to her.  

            She was 15, an age when all that matters is fitting in, wearing the right clothes and being accepted. It was the fall of her freshman year of high school and she had a brief fling with a senior football player. For this, she became the target of the “Mean Girls.”

            The Mean Girls followed Phoebe at school and on the Internet, calling her a whore or even worse, an Irish slut. Phoebe faced unmerciful bullying on the social-networking sites Facebook and Twitter as well as on Craigslist and Formspring. Threatening text messages were sent to her cell phone day after day after day.

           Several faculty, staff members and administrators at South Hadley High School were aware of the bullying, some even witnessed physical abuse, but did nothing.

            The name-calling, the stalking, the intimidation were relentless.

            On January 14^th 2010, Phoebe was walking home from school and one of the Mean Girls drove by in a car, insulted her and threw a soda can at her head. Phoebe kept walking, trying to ignore the abuse, but it had become unbearable. When Phoebe arrived home, she decided to take her life and hanged herself in the stairwell leading to the second floor of her family’s apartment.

             For the Mean Girls, there was no remorse. They went on Facebook and mocked her death.  Her tormentors wrote “accomplished” on her Facebook wall.

             Phoebe’s family decided to bury her in Ireland. They wanted an ocean between her and the people who had caused her death. Her family mourned the loss of Phoebe, the loss of an “incandescent enthusiasm of a life blossoming.”

            On March 30, 2010, nine teenagers, including the Mean Girls, were indicted and charged with subjecting Phoebe to statutory rape, civil rights violations, criminal harassment, stalking, and assault. Phoebe’s suicide has raised awareness about the prevalence of bullying, especially cyberbullying, across the country. The Massachusetts legislature passed a law to introduce an anti-bullying curriculum in the state’s public schools.

            Make a difference in your community by raising awareness of bullying and violence in school. Help kids who have been targeted or are potential targets of cyberbullying so as to prevent what happened to Phoebe from happening again. 
 

Like Omigod, Please Don't Shut Me Off

            One of my pet peeves in life is when people excessively use the world “like.” When people say “and then like…” or “like why…”, the word like is not needed. It makes a person sound less intelligent. So, if in M.T. Anderson’s Feed, the feed or neural implant enables a person to become intelligent, why is their word choice so pitiful? I understand the appeal of the feed in that is knows everything that a person wants and hopes for in their life. The feed is also a dictionary, a network to communicate with friends, and information source that increases intelligence. However, I personally can’t imagine living in a world where I am connected to a feednet, as I would feel transhuman.

            In the feednet world, there is no learning and there is no appreciation of culture. Most of the characters do not know how to write or read because they can rely on the feed. As Sven Birkerts believes, there is an issue of language erosion and flattening of historical perspective among students. The characters illustrate this issue perfectly, as they say “like” every other word and probably don’t know about significant historical events without their feed. Also, when the narrator, Titus, is sitting in his hospital bed staring at a painting, he claims that he can’t find anything interesting about the picture. Where is his appreciation for art? It’s nonexistent. All art, whether it is simple or complex is beautiful and interesting. Sometimes it requires deep thought and analysis to determine what the artist is trying to convey through their work. However, characters in Feed don’t need to think because their feed will think for them.

            As I read Feed, I was disturbed when the Coalition of Pity hacked the feednet. The hacking affected many of the characters and the police shut the humans off. In a quote from the novel, “‘We’re going to have to shut you off now. We’re going to have to shut you off.’ And then they touched us, and bodies fell and there was nothing else” (40). In my everyday life, what do I shut off? My TV, phone, and computer. No one shuts me off and I don’t shut off other human beings. It scares me that this could happen in the future. 

Project 3 Draft - Generation DotNet

            The Internet has become the communication and information medium of choice. As a result, many American students are less and less able to read and analyze, or to write with purpose and clarity. They have been subject to the “morbid symptoms” of the change to a proto-electronic society where the Internet is capable of conditioning sense and sensibilities (Birkerts). The Net has become our medium of choice for storing, processing, and sharing information and as author Nicholas Carr describes, “a new intellectual ethic is taking hold. The pathways in our brains are once again being rerouted” (Carr 77). The Internet is reweaving our social and cultural web and in turn, it has negatively affected the intellectual capabilities of many Internet users across the country in particular, Generation Y, or Generation DotNet.

            Among the world’s most influential minds, renowned scientists, authors, and literary critics have discussed the potential impact of the Internet on intelligence. In The Gutenberg Elegies, Sven Birkerts fears that our educational systems are in decline, as many students are less able to read and comprehend texts and test scores are falling at an alarming rate. Thus, he describes language erosion, the flattening of historical perspectives, and the waning of the private self as issues related to the use of technology. Language erosion results from fewer students reading books while historical perspective is “flattened” due to students viewing the past with only one perspective and as irrelevant to the future. Also, the connectedness of the Net contributes to the “electronic collectivization” which Birkerts believes has fueled the loss of the individuated self among young people, the loss of autonomy (Birkerts). Similarly, Howard Gardner, a psychologist at Harvard University thinks that the lives and minds of young people are fragmented as the plethora of connections, networks, and messages results in less stable identities in which “times for reflection, introspection, solitude are scarce” (Brockman 276). In addition to Birkerts and Gardner, Haim Harari, an Israeli theoretical physicist, believes that the Internet has made three significant changes to peoples’ thoughts. First, messages have become terse due to social networking, texting and e-mail. Second, the role of factual knowledge in the thinking process has diminished. The importance of factual knowledge has decreased because the Internet enables users to access facts quickly through sites such as Wikipedia and Google. Third, Harari thinks that the Internet has altered the process of teaching and learning. The use of technology in the classrooms “may create an entirely different pattern of knowledge, understanding, and thinking in the student” (Brockman 239). As human reliance on technology and the Internet increases, it has been hypothesized that there is a negative effect on human intelligence. The hypothesis is supported by thorough research completed by Mark Bauerlein, author of The Dumbest Generation, and data released from national surveys.

            In The Dumbest Generation, Bauerlein discusses the effect of the digital age on Generation Y, specifically on young Americans who are uninterested and actively cut off from world realities. As many students spend countless hours on the Web, their level of intelligence is not increasing because “the web is a consumer habitat, not an educational one” (Bauerlein 149). Many young Americans lack knowledge in history, civics, math/science/technology, and fine arts. There is zero benefit to spending hours on Facebook or other social networking sites, as these sites have no knowledge aims at all. In 2004, the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that the percentage of seventeen-year-olds who “never or hardly ever” read for enjoyment had more than doubled from 9 percent in 1984 to 19 percent in 2004 (Department of Education, United States). The more a person doesn’t read, the more a person can’t read and the intellectual development of the young mind will stall. Also, research has supported that children who grow up in homes with many books receive three years more schooling than children from bookless homes. This study, in which parents’ education occupation, and socioeconomic class were held constant, suggests that the presence of books in homes has significant educational benefits (Kelley et al.). In addition, the Chronicle of Higher Education released data from a 2006 survey of college professors, which found that only 6 percent of the professors surveyed believed that entering students were “very well prepared in writing” (Chronicle of Higher Education). It is evident that the changes in technology have led to new patterns of thinking, especially in reading and writing among young people. 

            Why do students choose not to read? Why are students’ writing skills inadequate? The Internet has likely contributed to the creation of these flaws. When writing a paper, students frequently turn immediately to the Internet to check for existing information instead of pursuing new thoughts through imagination. Thus, the Net satisfies immediate needs at the expense of deeper thinking and understanding. Also, the creation of Microsoft Word and spell-check prevent the improvement of a student’s writing skills. A blog post on the USA Today blog, “Generation Next,” said that young people today suffer from “e-literacy,” as “we can’t spell and we don’t know synonyms because there’s less need to know. What smart person would devote hours to learning words that can be accessed at the click of a button? Spell-check can spell. Shift +F7 produces synonyms” (Bauerlein 66). Thus, people's writing and thinking skills are deteriorating as their reliance on spell-check and the Internet grows exponentially. In addition to studies related to reading and writing, the theories of well-known critics and authors as well as scientific research studies have proven that the Internet has affected the neurological pathways of the human brain.

            The Internet has affected humanity, as neurological studies have provided evidence that it can restructure neural pathways, affecting cognition. Even though the long-term neurological and psychological experiments about how Internet use affects cognition are currently being conducted, published research suggests that the Net is changing the way we read and think. In a recently published study of online research habits, as part of a five-year research program experimenters examined computer logs. The logs documented the behavior of the site visitors on two websites that provided access to e-books, journal articles, and other written information. The results indicated that the visitors skimmed frequently, switched from one source to another and generally read no more than one or two pages of a source before switching to another site. The researchers concluded that these Internet users are not reading online in the traditional sense, instead they “‘power browse.’” (Carr). Unfortunately, when people read online, they become “‘mere decoders of information,’ our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged” (Carr). Due to the brain elasticity of humans, the Internet’s instant availability and overload of information has the potential to reprogram people at a biological level.

              In 2007 Gary Small, a UCLA professor of psychiatry conducted a study with 24 volunteers. Half the participants used the Internet daily while the other half had little experience with the technology. The participants performed Internet searches while undergoing fMRI scans which recorded changes in brain activity. After the initial scan, the participants spent one hour a day for seven days over a two-week period on the Internet. Then, the participants received a second scan and the fMRI results indicated activation in new brain regions for the inexperienced participants, regions related to working memory and decision-making. After a brief period of time the inexperienced participants had rewired their brains, as they demonstrated activation patterns similar to those who used the Internet daily (Champeau). This study shows how quickly and extensively the Net is able to restructure people’s neural pathways. Small concluded “the current explosion of digital technology is not only changing the way we live and communicate, but is rapidly and profoundly altering our brains” (Small). However, as the Internet leads to extensive brain activity, humans may be subject to cognitive overload. The psychological term cognitive load refers to the information flowing into our working memory. If the information load exceeds the brain’s ability to process and store it, the information will not be retained or be connected to other memories. Extensive brain activity may lead to cognitive overload, which prevents humans from converting new information into conceptual knowledge (Carr). In 2005, psychologists at Carelton University found that “the increased demands of decision-making and visual processing in the hypertext impaired reading performance…many features of the hypertext resulted in increased cognitive load” (DeStefano & LeFevre). In addition to cognitive overload, science reveals the actual effects that Internet use is having on the way many of our minds work.

            In contrast to the research studies that have indicated the Internet negatively influences human cognition, technophiles such as Ray Kurzweil and Nicholas Negroponte believe that the Internet is enhancing not degrading human intelligence. A research study at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies found that Internet use helps humans to develop “fluid intelligence – the ability to find meaning in confusion and solve new problems, independent of acquired knowledge” (Anderson). This research study supports that the Internet and its resources can shift cognitive capacities. Humans won’t have to remember as much information, but will have to improve critical thinking and analytical skills, as less time will be spent memorizing information. In addition, Ray Kurzweil, an American author, inventor, and futurist believes that machines will attain human-level intelligence and humans will become transhumanists, incorporating more technology to become more intelligent. Similarly, Nicholas Negroponte, founder of MIT’s Media Lab and the One Laptop per Child Association (OLPC) supports the use of technology. Negroponte wrote the bestselling book Being Digital and he is a digital optimist who believes that the Internet will improve human life. One of OLPC’s projects was to provide computers to children in developing countries, as Negroponte believes that computers are “a window into the world and a tool with which to think (Trafton). They are a wonderful way for all children to ‘learn learning’ through independent interaction and exploration” (Trafton). As is evident, there are arguments in favor of technology and Internet use, as it has the potential to improve human intelligence. However, the results of many research studies support that the Internet is negatively affecting human cognition.

            Many studies by psychologists, neurobiologists, educators, and Web designers about the effects of the Internet on how humans think all point to the same conclusion: “when we go online, we enter an environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learning” (Carr 115). The Internet can serve as an interruption system, as it scatters human attention. As people use the Net, they will often glance at their email inbox to check for new messages or stop reading an article in order to check Facebook. These breaks in a person’s concentration will burden their working memory, influencing cognition. In 2009, Patricia Greenfield, a developmental psychologist reviewed over 40 studies of the effects of different types of media on intelligence and learning ability. The studies supported that media weakens human ability for critical understanding and underpins “mindful knowledge acquisition, inductive analysis, critical thinking, imagination, and reflection” (Greenfield). Similarly, Jacob Vigdor and Helen Ladd of Duke’s Stanford School of Public Policy recently examined computer use among a half-million 5th through 8th grade students in North Carolina. They found that the use of home computers and Internet access were correlated to considerable declines in math and reading scores. The online world, which as Cory Doctorow describes as an “ecosystem of interruption technologies,” has contributed to student’s lower test stores (Vigdor, Ladd). Even though the Internet allows its users instant access to immense amounts of information, it is turning us into shallow, easily distracted thinkers. 

             The Internet has negatively influenced the attention-span and the ability to foster ideas among many of its users. As Nicholas Carr describes, “what we’re experiencing is, in a metaphorical sense, a reversal of the early trajectory of civilization: we are evolving from being cultivators of personal knowledge to being hunters and gatherers in the electronic data forest” (Carr 135). As humans navigate the Web, every time they shift their attention, their brain has to reorient itself, which strains mental resources. In particular, the Google search engine serves as a distraction to Internet users. It will continue to encourage users to click as often as possible, as it gains hold of our intellectual lives. “Hyperlinks are designed to grab our attention. Their value as navigational tools is inextricable from the distraction they cause” (Carr 90). It is impossible to be attentive and learn when a person is distracted from distraction by distraction as they click from site to site. As a result, the Net’s abundance of stimuli undermines human thought, which prevents the ability to think with creativity and attentiveness. In addition, many people visit too many websites and receive too many messages while feeling overwhelmed by everything that is occurring online. Many users lack the ability to manage their time properly in the face of this plethora of information. Thus, this makes people constantly unfocused, distracted and less able to complete intellectually demanding tasks.

            “As revolutionary as it may be, the Net is best understood as the latest in a long series of tools that have helped mold the human mind” (Carr 115). Unfortunately, the Internet has not necessarily molded the human mind in a positive respect. Among Generation Y, the evidence cited in this paper confirms that for most young Internet users, “the Web hasn’t made them better readers and writers, sharper interpreters and more discerning critics, more knowledgeable citizens and tasteful consumers” (Bauerlein 110); instead, the Internet may be the greatest enemy to deep thinking since the invention of the television. The United States needs the Millennials to become intelligent men and women who aspire to be strong and wise political and military leaders, journalists, teachers, judges, scholars, critics, and artists. The future resides in Generation Y or Generation DotNet and it is imperative to prevent the influence of the “morbid symptoms” of the Internet in this proto-electronic era.          

Works Cited:

Anderson, Janna, and Lee Rainie. "Does Google Make Us Stupid?" Pew Internet & American Life 

            Project (2010).

Birkerts, Sven. The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age.

            Winchester: Faber and Faber, 1994.
Big Think. Entrepreneurship: The New Liberal Arts?. Ray Kurzweil. Big Think. Web

Brockman, John. Is the Internet Changing the Way You Think?: The Net’s Impact on Our

            Minds and Future. New York: HarperCollins, 2011.

Brooks, David. "The Medium Is the Medium." The New York Times 2010. The New York

            Times. Web.

Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York:

            W.W. Norton, 2010.

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic (2008). The Atlantic. July

            2008. Web.

Champeau, Rachel. "First-time Internet Users Find Boost in Brain Function After Just One Week."   

            UCLA Newsroom (2009).

Chronicle of Higher Education. “What Professors and Teachers Think: A Perception Gap over 

            Students’ Preparation” (10 Mar 2006).

Department of Education, United States. NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of 

            Performance in Reading and Mathematics (2005).

Greenfield, Patricia M. "Technology and Informal Education: What Is Taught, What Is Learned." 

            Science 323.5910: 69-71.            

Kelley, Jonathan, Joanna Sikora, and Donald Treiman. "Family Scholarly Culture and Educational 

            Success: Books and Schooling in 27 Nations." Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 

            28.2 (2010): 171-97. SciVerse. Web.

Small, Gary. "Meet Your IBrain." Scientific American (2008).

Trafton, Anne. "$100 Laptop Idea Taking Off." MIT News. 5 Oct. 2005. Web.

Vigdor, Jacob L., and Helen F. Ladd. "Scaling the Digital Divide: Home Computer Technology and 

            Student Achievement." The National Bureau of Economic Research (2010).

Be Connected. Feel Connected. Stay Connected

            As I watched “The Social Network,” I learned about Mark Zuckerberg, ConnectU, the Winklevoss twins, and the history and development of Facebook. What do I now think of Mark Zuckerberg? Yes, he is impressive as a visionary, a great entrepreneur and the youngest billionaire. Yet, for someone who created a social networking website, he doesn’t have commendable social skills. In fact, during his Harvard years, he was an asshole. It was immoral for him to mistreat his girlfriend from Boston University and lie multiple times to the Winklevoss twins. (Although, I wouldn’t be complaining if I were one of the Winklevoss twins, as they will probably successfully sue Zuckerberg for another $140 million.) However, despite Zuckerberg’s past decisions, I believe that he deserves credit for Facebook’s developments and improvements since its creation in 2004.

            Today, Facebook connects the entire world with its 600 million active users. As someone who often uses this site, I see both advantages and disadvantages to Facebook. I appreciate this site because it allows me to connect with friends who attend other colleges or who live abroad. I am able to keep in touch with friends who live in Africa and Europe without having to pay for long distance phone calls. In addition, Facebook helps create a sense of community on my college campus. When clubs/organizations create events, a large percentage of the study body will receive an invitation on Facebook. This generates awareness and as a result, hundreds of students will attend a cappella concerts, fundraisers, guest speakers or pep rallies.       

            Even though Facebook has its advantages in allowing millions of people to communicate daily, the question becomes: how connected is too connected? When I look at my friends Facebook profiles, many of them have between 500-1500 friends. You simply can’t have 1,000 close friends. And there can be negative effects from accepting friend requests from acquaintances or strangers – What if it is a potential employer? What if it is a pedophile? You never know. Unfortunately, some people use social networking sites to cyberbully others anonymously. Or, a potential employer might see photos of you engaging in illegal activity such as, underage drinking and decide not to hire you. It is important for all Facebook users to be aware of the potential dangers in revealing personal information and images on the Internet.   

            Overall, I believe that Mark Zuckerberg has created a wonderful site in which people are able to easily connect. However, there is no face-to-face in Facebook. The importance of real human interaction cannot be forgotten. 

Embrace Imperfection

            The Transhumanist Declaration states “humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future.” After reading books, novels, essays, and articles for my first-year seminar Cyberspace, I am certain that this statement is true, as technology will continue to become more prevalent in our lives. I am not opposed to all technology because I use my computer, cell phone, and iPod daily. However, I disapprove of artificial intellects, modified life forms, the elimination of aging, enhancing human intellectuality, and improving physical and psychological abilities. We are born as unique human beings with wonderfully different characteristics. Someone may not be athletic but they excel elsewhere, maybe in the classroom. Dwight Howard may be the perfect specimen of a human being, but even he frequently misses free throws. In our world, no one is perfect. I believe that this is one of the most important aspects of humanity.

                                                                              

            

             In the future, the world may be filled with humans who are perfect. A world where every human being has the maximum intellectuality, physical, and psychological capacities. Why would anyone want to live in a world where every human is the same? The only reason that I would ever support this transhumanist ideal is so that the pursuit to end poverty in third world countries would be complete. Otherwise, I would never want to live in a world without cultural and intellectual diversity, as unique differences and perspectives make life interesting. I would be bored if I lived in a world where everyone was identical. In addition, I question why any person would want to be immortal. Aging is part of the life cycle and I think that it's unethical to alter physical and intellectual human traits.

            Even though I am not a fan of transhumanism, I respect Humanity+. The non-profit is dedicated to the ethical use of technology to extend human capabilities. It supports the development of and access to new technologies that enable everyone to enjoy better minds, better bodies and better lives. In the Transhumanist Declaration, Humanity+ favors allowing individuals personal choice over how they enable their lives and firmly supports the reduction of risks in order to preserve life and health. I think that this non-profit deserves admiration for their commitment to the ethical use of technology to enhance the human condition. However, as these technologies develop, Humanity+ will not be performing human enhancements or be able to ensure every procedure is ethical and risk free. Will the scientists and the companies who create these new technologies act in their best interest or in the best interest of humanity?