Talk:Is Google Making Us Stupid?/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Is Google Making Us Stupid?. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Ideas for expansion

The most obvious way of going about building a stub article here would be to create one section on what the article says ("Thesis"/"Synopsis"/"Argument") and one on people's responses to it ("Impact"/"Reaction"/"Reception"), and go from there. the skomorokh 17:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I did that roughly. The nuance will come as I actually read the reactions. It is a very interesting article and so the coverage of the different facets of the article could merit subsections within Reaction and even Argument.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability concern and possible merge

Is such a magazine article notable enough for WP? Usually I am on the inclusionist side, but this seems a bit of a slippery slope to me -the fact a recent article has been discussed on blogs does not seem me enough to warrant a brand new article in WP. I personally would merge the article in Criticism of Google. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not blogs. Every major newspaper: WSJ, NYTIMES, Globe and Mail... I'm moving to my userspace to make the next major edits to this article. The reactions are nuanced enough to merit a decent summary style article on the magazine article.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I am working on a draft here: User:Manhattan Samurai/Is Google Making Us Stupid?. Join me.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification -the information is ~~probably~~ notable ~~(Technically I wait for references, but I am quite sure they will come)~~ (Checked now, it is referenced in the draft). Yet I am still convinced also that the merge is the best thing to do. I explained my point of view on the merge discussion in Talk:Criticism of Google#Merge proposal. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" is not in fact about Google, but rather cognition.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. I re-read the article and I fully agree that Criticism of Google is not the right place. Sorry. I have a counter-proposal, discussed below. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible merge with Internet

I re-read the article, thought a bit about it, and I have a proposal. The magazine article is, in fact, a kind of review on (a few aspects of) the cultural impact of the Internet. Quite surprisingly, there is no article on it, nor any relevant section on the Internet or World Wide Web articles. I again personally feel that this article is better not as a standalone, but as a section of Internet, and specifically it should be merged in a section regarding the cultural impact of the Internet. In this way:

The Carr article content, the sources referenced in it and the responses to it could be discussed in full and in context, with the addition of further (and possibly future) references.
This would be an extremly good start for a section on the cultural impact of the Internet, that in my opinion is badly needed.

I therefore propose a merge of the content of this article in a section on the cultural impact of Internet. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about my experiment with vandalism. Umm.. I think this article could definitely improve the "cultural impact of the Internet" section but I also think it deserves an article that summarizes all the different facets of the conversation about the magazine article. Then after it has been determined exactly what can be said about it, the pieces can be copied to elsewhere on Wikipedia. But I would like to see/summarize what Britannica has discussed and some of the others.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think best things to do now are (1)Looking at how the article will look like when a bit more complete (2)See if someone jumps in the discussion. I will be more than happy to change my mind if there is the ground for it. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for a merge. The subject most certainly is notable enough to justify a separate existence. It needs improving, not a merge. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

To me the problem is not notability (I'm sure it is notable), the issue is where and how this notable material should be presented. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I just think that this essay is interesting enough, and so widely discussed, that if someone gets a handle on all of that conversation (maybe me) they could complete the Wiki article in question and point to where the essay is weak, where there is agreement, what it all means. It is a very thought provoking piece. Britannica is having a go at it, and actually have quite a decent web page collecting their various conversations, including others as well, such as Seth Finkelstein.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I feel there is a misunderstanding.

I agree the essay is interesting and widely discussed. As for notability, yes, as such it can be deemed notable. However what is *more* notable is the cultural impact of the Internet it reviews, than the article itself. Let me use an analogy: there is the theory of relativity, and there are reviews on the theory of relativity. It is well possible that a given review on theory of relativity is widely discussed and thought-provoking (and thus, technically, notable in itself) but, unless in truly exceptional cases, whatever it says and reactions are better described in the article on theory of relativity. In this case, having a separate article in my humble opinion does a disservice to the content you want to put on WP (because it remains out-of-context), and does a disservice to the fact we need an article or at least a section on the cultural and cognitive impact on the Internet where the content, responses etc. to the Carr article would be discussed in a more general and less parochial context.

Also, I would like again to make me clear on the fact that (1)merging content is *not* a way to diminish the value of that content and (2)I eagerly wait for the article to be more complete, so that its potential and drawbacks as a standalone article is understood. For now, I would just like a discussion. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand this is not an issue of notability, rather one of presentation, but I respectfully submit that we should give the article a chance to grow into a proper introduction to Carr's piece and see how it stands up on its own before discussing possible merges. This is a very young article and Manhattan Samurai shows intent to develop it, so let's relax a little and let things develop organically. the skomorokh 12:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, as I declared above I am more than willing to wait-and-see. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mergetags removed now from Internet too, consensus seems to be on your side :) --Cyclopia (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge it, please. Wrad (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cyclopia that there is something confusing going on here. There's a growing controversy about the impact of the internet on human cognition. This article seems to be the most comprehensive and well written summary of the issue, going well beyond the original magazine piece by Carr. For example, if I wanted to add in Susan Greenfield's ideas from her book ID: The Quest for Identity, it would seem strange to add them here - but where else would they go? Dan Gluckman (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Stoopid

Congratulations on what's turned into a great and fascinating article, but I note that the Atlantic Monthly article starting this asks, "Is Google Making Us Stoopid?" Yet the article reads "Stupid?" I also note that misspellings by other critics are marked [sic]. So what's with me? Am I sic, or just stoopid? Pawyilee (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The article itself uses the correct spelling; the "stoopid" spelling was cartoonist's license, I suspect. For bonus point, Carr himself spells it correctly. Regards, Skomorokh 13:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Touche[sic]. Tnx for the article, itself. Pawyilee (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of the one the [sic]s for a critics comment, but the other one has to stay. The quote by John Battelle is too good to chop up and work around his misspelling.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm wary of taking credit for the work of a Samurai, let alone a full-blooded New Yorker, so I think I'll decline! Skomorokh 14:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem at my end is that I've already hyperjumped to your user page to see the long list of articles that you can take credit for, which feed into my hyperactive, data-stoked mind till meeting up with a Samurai seems like the lesser evil, though perhaps not as bad as tilting with a full-blooded New Yorker! Pawyilee (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I take full credit for this article along with ownership. I believe I am inviting a hail of policy reminders with that statement. Glad you like it, Pawyilee. It's covers a fascinating topic. I'm reading Norman Doidge's book now to pick up more of the science of neuroplasticity.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As for Stoopid, when I saw the cover page I figured on just using the comic title in the caption for the infobox. I'm not sure what the proper term is for the cartoonish title but there probably is one. It's the least frequently used title for the article.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Eggcorn comes close, but no cigar: stoopid is not a word substitution but a deliberate [sic]. Having hyperskimmed Wikipedia, my neuroplastic brain suggests that finding an appropriate term should be as easy as falling off a Language Log]. Pawyilee (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Eggcorn is an interesting term. It would be great if a better phrasing could be used for the caption to hedge off any stoopid questions. Any ideas?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

How about a hatnote along the lines of {{otheruses4|the essay|Googol|other uses}}? Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion, but the directions for their use confuse me; and I think Wikipedia:Disambiguation, ambiguous. Pawyilee (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bicameralism (psychology)

I added See also Bicameralism (psychology). Though I don't agree with the conclusions Julian Jaynes drew in his 1976 book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, I think his research supplies some answers to the question, is Google making us stupid? Pawyilee (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I reordered them by relevance. I don't know what the rules are for "See also" sections. I'm not familiar with "Bicameralism (psychology)" or "Captology" but if they add a certain diversity of opinion to the article's topic then why not. However, Doidge's book is the most relevant of the three, dealing with specifically the advances in neuroplasticity.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No matter how you go about it, See also relevance is POV, even in ABC order. At this point, you're editor-in-chief, so order it! You'll also have to order the focus, or this article AND its patronym risk making us stupid! Pawyilee (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-order the focus? I wrote it as narratively as possible. Starting with Background, giving you context, then a Synopsis, delivering the goods, followed by a Post-publication, giving the reactions, and then the Analysis, which is further reactions but with greater depth, and afterward, the Themes/Motifs (maybe this one belongs elsewhere?), but finally ending with "Developing picture of how internet use affects cognition" because that is ongoing and where the narrative ends for now and probably the next few decades.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What it means is that MY attention was beginning to wander, and you've pulled it back.

(1) I'll leave my links in See also, below, on this back page until some other editor thinks they belong up front.

(2) Redirected from Is Google Making Us Stoopid? to ...Stupid (Google does the same.)

I think you should add the hatnote {{otheruses4|the magazine article|pages pertaining to Google|Google (disambiguation)}}. You can preview what that would look like in my sandbox. Pawyilee (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Needed my sandbox back, so went ahead and put on the hatnote. Pawyilee (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, forgot about that. Sure, it will get more opinions that way.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Focus

"Respice Finem; that is to say, in all your actions, look often upon what you would have, as the thing that directs all your thoughts in the way to attain it." -- Leviathan, p. 7. As neither article nor essay is about Google or the WWW, but about re-ordered thinking, we should heed Thomas Hobbes: What would you have this article attain? Pawyilee (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not well read. What the hell does all this mean?Manhattan Samurai (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Difference of neural versus neuronal?

It's a good question. If you have an answer go to WikiAnswers and help out this inquiring soul. In The Brain That Changes Itself I have come across pages where both terms neural networks and neuronal networks are used and I haven't been able to figure out the difference between them intuitively. To the dictionary, I guess.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Very vexing. Page 117 of The Brain That Changes Itself uses (yes, all on the same page) the term "neural network" and "neuronal network", as well as "neural level" and "neuronal level". Throw in "neurological level" and it would be even crazier. But I'm on it. There are appendices at the end of the book that may explain all of this. Also, there is tons of biographical information about Merzenich which I will use to explain his importance better in the Themes and motifs section.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking neural circuit and neuronal circuit just to keep tabs on whether they exist or not as articles.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The article "Biological neural network" provides some answers.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So in Carr's essay he says "Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory." However, in an email, he told me that "Given what we know now about neuroplasticity, it seems certain that internet use is changing our neuronal circuitry." So I'll go with his most recent usage: neuronal circuitry. I just don't know if there really is a difference. The investigation will continue.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried asking at WP:RDS or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience? Skomorokh 16:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I went to WP:RDS and posed the question: [1]. I wasn't aware of this venue.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

From ReferenceDesk/Science: What is the difference between neuronal circuitry and neural circuitry?

The below is the answer to my question. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi: I'm working on the Wiki article about the essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" and I have been unable to determine the difference between the adjectives neural and neuronal. The question has also been posed at WikiAnswers by someone other than me. If you could enlighten me about the differences I would appreciate it. Nicholas Carr, in his essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", says "Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory." However, in an email, he told me that "Given what we know now about neuroplasticity, it seems certain that internet use is changing our neuronal circuitry." So he even seems to use the terms "neural circuitry" and "neuronal circuitry" interchangeably. The same goes for "neural network" and "neuronal network", as well as "neural level" and "neuronal level"—terms which are used on page 117 of Norman Doidge's book The Brain That Changes Itself without any apparent differences. I can't see any at least. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Neural" means "of, relating to, or affecting a nerve or the nervous system" (Merriam Webster), whereas "neuronal" means "of, or relating to a neuron" (Wictionary - MW just redirects to "neuron"). That is, "neural" involves the large scale nervous system, whereas "neuronal" involves the small scale nerve cells (neurons). However, since the nervous system is made up of neurons, something that relates to or affects the neurons will relate to or affect the nervous system as well, so the to can be taken as synonyms in most cases. I'd use "neural" in most cases (being the older and more widely used word), only using "neuronal" when I wanted to stress the "on the cellular level" connotation. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In my personal experience as a jobbing neuroscientist, they are often used interchangably. I get the impression neuronal tends to be used more often when referring to specific, defined circuits (because it pertains to specific neurons), whereas neural is more often used when referring to more complex, undefined circuits (because it pertains to the nervous system). That said, there are plenty of examples of the opposite [2]. I'd just choose one, and stick with it. Rockpocket 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I too came to a feeling that neuronal was low-level and neural was high-level. However, sticking to one or the other is out of the question considering everyone I have come across uses both terms.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I meant stick with one type of usage in the article (unless in a quote), per WP:MOS. Since there is significant ambiguity, it probably doesn't matter which is used in the article, but consistency would certainly make it easier for the reader. Rockpocket 22:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived here This question as posed at RDS was archived to here and went on for a little longer after the above excerpt of the discussion: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2009_January_4#What_is_the_difference_between_neuronal_circuitry_and_neural_circuitry.3F.

Reality get hyperlinked

This doesn't belong in the Stupid article, so I hope someone here knows where it does go. Pawyilee (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Screen reading

Ah-ha, another venue in which I can talk. I may have to start a blog on this talk page. There is a red link in the "See Also" section of this article that may bother a few, so if you come here to comment I suggest reading these sources for more information on 'Screen reading':

Mark Bauerlein (2008-09-19). "Online Literacy Is a Lesser Kind: Slow reading counterbalances Web skimming". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 54 (31). Washington, D.C.: Page B7.
Kevin Kelly (2008-11-21). "Becoming Screen Literate". The New York Times.
Christine Rosen. "People of the Screen", The New Atlantis, Number 22, Fall 2008, pp. 20–32.

It's truly an interesting topic. Please feel free to add more sources on 'Screen reading' here and even to create the article yourself if you feel so compelled. Once a Screen reading article is written then the three sources above can be removed from the "Further reading" section. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Refs

Just a small thing I happened to notice – some of the Harvardised Carr references (e.g. 50, 51, 68) link to ref no. 24 rather than to an entry in the Bibliography. The other refs could be subsumed under the "coverstory" ref name and/or Carr could be taken into the Bibliography so that all these refs point to it there. Jayen 466 18:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted, thanks. I believe the Harvard "Carr 2008" refs are intended to link to The Big Switch in the Bibliography section, but the fact that there is already a Carr 2008 (the article itself) has mislead the template. I've stripped the code from the article reference to get around this; if there's a more elegant solution (e.g. 2000a, 2000b), I'm all ears! Skomorokh 01:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that this is a good article, what about Mark Bauerlein's contention in The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30), recently released in paperback? (Tarcher/Penguin, 236 pp.)(See 50 Million Minds Diverted, Distracted, Devoured) Pawyilee (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the contention, and what does it have to do with this topic? Skomorokh 01:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The contention is that this topic has been handled very well, indeed, and that perhaps now some of this excellent group of editors will take a look to see if 50 Million Minds are being Diverted, Distracted, Devoured (and turned into twits.) Pawyilee (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the reply. Alas, the author of this article has been banned from the encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 12:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Diverted, Distracted, Devoured by twits? Pawyilee (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, great! Our great editor has been shot in the mouf just as New Atlantis pops up with is stupid making us google! Pawyilee (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I felt stupid for not reading this essay when I saw that it was obviously being read by a lot of people but I see that it's one person only that wrote this? Why would anyone do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupified Googler (talk • contribs) 05:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC) {{featured article candidates|Is Google Making Us Stupid?/archive2}}

Name

The front cover of the magazine uses "stoopid", this article uses "stupid"... It may use "stupid" inside, but it should be adressed here. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)