I was glad that nobody else was there. Sometimes I think she might leave me here, to rot on the plains like cornstalks in November. She rolled here eyes, "If you just Google it, it will come."
Her face had returned to her own screen, some crap drama thing, but her smirk remained. Making fun of me and my movies, this day is gonna be a par, I thought, considering that average was something indeed.
"Google it," she had said.
What in hell, did this search engine do, to become a word in probably more language than just English? And why do some hate it, and most use it?
According to a 2008 article in The Atlantic, by Nicholas Carr, Google has "darkened our circuits" and led to a loss of cognitive thought. We live in a scripted sort of algorithm, Carr puts it. And because of that rhythmic sway, Google has made us dumber, by requiring less focus to get more content.
At the other end of the pendulum, Google has made us smarter, by connecting ideas and solving the world's tasks. But at what cost?
Carr talks about his own loss of focus, especially when reading "longish" articles, and I can relate. But not quite in the same way, as I have noticed not a lack of focus from myself, but rather, a loss of focus in American readers.
Is it Google's fault, that I am told by media powers(policymakers & editors), that "readable" stories are 500-700 words? Not 2000. I do not believe so. I tend to hold accountable people's effort, and that effort, Google HAS helped destroy, however unintentional. By trying to efficiently search your keyword, Google has helped us to relinquish responsibilities in daily cognitive thought. But instead of making good use of that time, the inherent qualities of efficiency have flooded the medium with noise.
It is that noise, that makes Google look bad. Noise such as repetitive news, goofball opinions, sloppy writing, and "status" updates, have made the whole medium look and act bad.
But all is not lost.
Because of the open nature of the internet, and Google, the instantly connected and distributed world wide web is a tool for humanity, just like the printing press. And I disagree somewhat with Carr, and the reference to Joseph Weizenbaum's "clockwork," as the clock is simply a guide, a suggestion. I eat when I want, no matter the time.
Tracking time is merely a guide to ensure a better efficiency. Much like the "automated" worker of Francis Winslow Taylor, no matter how the worker felt, the end result was skyrocketing production efficiency. Maybe the discussion should include paying those now super-workers a correct wage...
Much in the way of Daylight Savings Time, these "marks" only put a higher regard for structure into the daily comings and goings of you and I. Without it, we would burn even more daylight without even thinking of the consequences. Those consequences have been things like higher power bills(inefficient lighting), inflation, and laziness.
And The Atlantic writer can relate.
Carr backs his own experiences with both similar testimonies and data about the good parts of our newfound proficiency. Carr provides such relevant data as Google founders exclaiming the obvious benefit to an "assisted and super-smart brain," and even Clay Shirky noting the "problems" with Gutenburg's printing press.
But one must only look in the direction of Foldit, or TEDTalks, to see the benefits of an openly connected society, one that is distributed in real time. Even "noisy" Facebook, can and does enhance the human spirit, by groupsourcing causes and information. Fundraisers for cancer, or a local garage sale, can be distributed to a network faster and wider than ever before.
Nothing has changed, except speed. In the old days, when I was young and the world was flat, the "noise" was still present. In grocery checkout lines, The National Enquirer screams headlines not fit for The New York Times. Some read that garbage, and some still do. But the fact is, The Times is read at a much higher rate, and the paper has rolled with the changing landscape. The New York newspaper has a capable website, does the Enquirer?
Because we have in fact, become less "involved" in our own processes, blaming technology's speed for those losses is inappropriate. The rollercoaster of technology has and will provide humans with the tools to make the future bigger, stronger, and yes- faster. It is our responsibility to use the newfound speed practically and efficiently, because the changes are far from over.
Hang on, it is gonna be one heck of a ride.
A photo I distributed inside a "fishing tips" article, not possible before the internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment