“Is Google Making Us Stupid?”

 

Some years back, the writer Nicholas Carr touched off a storm of controversy with his article about the internet “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” (linked below). It’s a controversy that rages still today. Carr argues that the internet has changed our brains, and that the change is very much for the worse. Because we now spend so much time surfing the web for information and entertainment, Carr contends, we’re losing our ability to concentrate and to contemplate: we no longer know how to think deeply and seriously, according to Carr; and as a result our thinking has become broad but very, very shallow. Of course, there are other observers who disagree with Carr, like writer David Wolman (below).
Please read Carr’s essay and Wolman’s response, and then, by noon (Mountain Time) on Wednesday, post your response to this question: Based on your own experience and those of people you know, do you believe that our use of the internet is diminishing our capacity to think? Why or why not?

Sample Solution

American writer Nicholas Carr`s claim that the internet is not only shaping our lives but physically altering our brains has sparked a lively and ongoing debate. Excess use of the internet over prolonged periods of time may negatively affect some cognitive functions, particularly attention and short-term memory. Modern neuroscience, which has revealed the “plasticity” of the human brain, shows that our habitual practices can actually change our neuronal structures. The brains of illiterate people, for example, are structurally different from those of people who can read. So if the technology of printing, and its concomitant requirement to learn to read, could shape human brains, then surely it is logical to assume that our addiction to networking technology will do something similar.

r being Roman, and this would convert into his future activities as sovereign and draftsman.

Hadrian was solid in both psyche and body. He was assembled tall and attractive, and saved in shape through his adoration for hunting. In the expressions of H.A.L Fisher, Hadrian was too “the general virtuoso.” He was a writer, vocalist, stone carver, and admirer of the works of art so he became referred to by quite a few people of his friends as a Greekling. The collaboration among Greek and Roman goals inside Hadrian made him ready to move toward his country’s chances and battles from various points, which is likewise why he would turn out to be a particularly fruitful ruler. When he came to control “Hadrian had seen a greater amount of the Roman domain than any previous ruler had done at the hour of his promotion. He knew Spain, yet France and Germany, the Danube lands, Asia Minor, the Levant and Mesopotamia, and in this manner had an individual colleague with the royal patrimony that no other person in Rome could equal.”

During Hadrian’s rule as sovereign, he conformed to a tactical strategy that was disputable at that point, however motivated by his childhood in the territory of Italica. He accepted that the territories ought to be monitored by a privately enlisted military, while his Roman armies would remain in a solitary district for quite a long time. The individual interest of common occupants to safeguard themselves was his objective. The main Roman relatives that would support the insurance of territories were important for the corps d’elite – the most elite – and would be sent exclusively to prepare the selected military-men. During his rule, nonetheless, Hadrian encountered a deficiency of two full armies. The diminishing of his military implied he would depend vigorously on enrolled common men as well as actual hindrances. One of which – his generally popular – was situated in Britain: Hadrian’s Wall.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.