Journal Article Review: Does Google Make Us Stupid?
The Webster dictionary defines the word ‘stupid’ as “marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting”; an adjective used to describe one who “lack intelligence or reason.” This word can be used in numerous contexts, it is almost always certain to have negative connotations behind it. As an MBA candidate who has read a multitude of books and journals for pleasure and for learning, someone who was blessed by a family that could afford to send me to school – I am fairly familiar with the meaning behind this not-so-flattering word, like many other words, phrases and ideas in my internally-stored ‘knowledge-bank.’ I am ‘compelled’, however, to ask –perhaps introspect – as to why I had to do a Google search (using the Google Chrome browser, of course) in order to be led to the Webster dictionary’s definition of the word. I ask myself – have I intrinsically become so dependant on the internet to either verify or ‘confirm’ knowledge that I already knew? What about the things that I am unfamiliar with? Do the top five search results (Wikipedia almost always among them), or ‘sponsored sites’ hold the key to knowledge I am hoping to grasp? Is it more effective to go by Google results, or to acquire and do research the ‘old-fashioned way’ –one that involves dusty hardcover books, scholastic journals and what have you, rather than a wireless connection and an eager finger on the mouse clicking and scrolling away?
The truth is, Google –like other search engines – have facilitated our access to a huge database of information (or misinformation) readily available on the worldwide web (WWW). It really goes down to the user and how deep down they hope (or are willing) to dig to find scholarly and relevant information; ideally this would be coming from authoritative sources which provide undigested, most up-to-date and corroborated information. This is complemented and coupled by the digital age of high speed 3G and 4G data network coverage on our ‘Smartphones.’ As rhetorical as it may sound, it is undeniable that this has enabled the current and next (read net) generation to have the entire world at their fingertips.
The only real difference between the current generations and the generations of yesteryear is that we are no longer forced to have knowledge ‘imbued’ in us permanently. Google as a search engine has become such a commonly known platform. Want to know some quick facts and figures encompassing the Civil War? Just Google it! What are the most recently discovered elements on the table of elements? Just Google it! We are saved the ‘hassle’ of having to go to the library for research or refer to the old history book we had from high school (the one sitting in the attic, packed in a box full of mothballs).
Noted blogger and scientist Carl Zimmer makes an interesting point when he describes the human mind as something that holds a great deal of information while our ‘extended-mind’ moves swiftly between outside and inside sources, showing little regard for where its information comes from . Given technological advances and an age where large amounts of data can be transferred digitally, we are slowly becoming “natural cyborgs.” Our minds are constantly seeking to extend themselves, grabbing on to new tools and methodologies for acquiring information and interacting with other humans or devices. He would likely agree that the ‘visual Wikipedia’ (i.e. our surroundings from which we gain firsthand information) is no different or less relevant, in theory, than Google, which is a platform we use to search for information on the internet. As humans we are constantly ‘consulting’ the world around us . In any case, we have to be careful and be mindful of any fallacies which would cause us to misinterpret or misread information around us –whether we are out in public, in a scholarly hands-on environment, or behind a computer screen. One could therefore argue that Google may be making us a bit lazier than our ‘predecessors.’ It may be changing the way that we seek, think about, process and digest information. It certainly has necessitated the need to be able to sift through fact and fiction; truth from myth; neutral and authoritative information from emotion-driven and biased opinions disguised as facts. We also tend to memorize less internally, relying more on ‘external memory’ that can readily be refreshed and re-internalized by the user. Google is not, however, making us ‘stupid.’
Many could perhaps agree that stupidity has a clear correlation –a negative one –with critical thinking. The more ‘stupid’ one is, the less likely it is that they will be able to engage in critical thinking. Those who are educated are (ideally) taught to use and apply critical thinking approaches to solve problems or analyze and interpret data and other relevant information. Some of these critical thinking approaches are inherent and instilled from childhood to adulthood, the rest are learned through personal experiences in the academic and ‘real’ world.
Google represents the window from which we can access scores of blogs, scholarly websites, encyclopedias, ‘Wikis’ and what have you. It is not intelligent enough to be able to determine the value of the search results. Using an advanced search, the user can define parameters (key words, boolean phrases, time relevance, etc.) which can help narrow down and refine the results. The use and application of those parameters are at the discretion of the user him/herself. We go to Google, search, and then sift through the results, finding key ‘pieces’ that address things we want to find and learn about. Our ‘predecessors’ went to the library, searched manually using catalogues, got the relevant book(s), analyzed and memorized (or noted) the information. The main difference here is that Google is a like a vast ‘book’ –a conduit of sorts that leads people to a plethora of topics and information; an informative book we find at the library or bookstore on the other hand is more likely to deal or ‘specialize’ in one subject only. The latter is also more time-consuming.
According to a web-survey conducted by Netcraft in April 2010, there are over 205 million operating websites existing on the worldwide web . Someone with intelligence, sound research skills and good judgment must be able to come to terms with the fact that Google simply brings out the results. The hard part is distinguishing the relevant and salient results from those that are irrelevant and/or substance-devoid. That in itself is something that we must be trained to do; until the time comes when Google can patch into our minds and emulate the way we think and process information, we will have to develop and hone our ability to do this. In that sense, the exact same thing applies to information and data we acquire through reading material in a textbook. The only difference here is that Google provides us with a far greater number of ‘hits’; we may also have the temptation to simply ‘copy, paste and/or regurgitate what we have read. In that particular instance, not only would that be the ‘stupid’ thing to do; in many cases it would be considered an unethical breach of academic honesty and thusly illegal. Just because Google (or more specifically, the computer) gives the option of copying, it does not mean that more people will opt to be ‘stupid’ and do so. If people were stupid to begin with perhaps they would not have known any better, due to their inability to critically analyze what they have read and apply it to existing knowledge and ideas. If they use Google results online or Britannica in the library, they are still copying. For reasons that are not relevant to this analysis, some people are born simply with the inability to "think" - some people are just incapable of taking on tasks that requires a highly complex regulation of their neurons. However, that is a whole other issue altogether. If used the proper way (i.e. gathering the sources, analyzing them, digesting the meat of the information and applying it) Google can help us become smarter. Google however does not hold the key that either renders us one step closer to stupidity or ingenuity. That is entirely up to the user him/herself. Google (and the internet itself) is a very useful tool when used wisely and in moderation.
while the same news is first quoted in some European/American news paper from where the Indians copy but yet they donot rank top... it is because of the localization of the search engine...
