500 word draft
Distraction, like many other things, has evolved over the years. It is only natural that while humans evolve, modes of distraction and our responses to them evolve simultaneously. Today, the main mode of distraction is technology, and most people are just starting to form their own opinions about it. Since it is a highly debatable topic, it is only natural that people can have perspectives from the opposite ends of the spectrum. Nicholas Carr, a journalist who mostly writes about the effects of technology, laments that it is stealing his ability to think deeply in his article, Is Google Making Us Stupid? On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sam Anderson, a writer for the New York Times Magazine, talks about how he has noticed technology affecting people, and then “defends” it in his article, In Defense of Distraction. While Carr feels that technology is reducing our human complexity, Anderson argues that it actually increases it, because it forces our brains to change. While I understand where Carr is coming from, I believe that Anderson’s view is more compelling. Since evolution is a natural part of life, I don’t believe that technology will always have the effects that Carr describes, though I do realize that it is an issue now.
The brain is the most complex part of the human body, and consequently isn’t 100% understood now. What we do know is that it is very elastic and therefore has the ability to adapt to many situations. I believe technology is therefore adaptable, even within one’s lifetime. Anderson shares the same view. While he discusses the fact that there is currently an attention crisis, he doesn’t necessarily see this as a bad thing in the long run, arguing that, “More than any other organ, the brain is designed to change based on experience, a feature called neuroplasticity. London taxi drivers, for instance, have enlarged hippocampi…a neural reward for paying attention to the city’s streets. As we become more skilled in the 21st century task Mayer calls “flitting,” the wiring of the brain will inevitably change to deal more efficiently with more information.” Here, Anderson describes neuroplasticity, which is the brain’s ability to learn and adapt during one’s lifetime. He believes this ability can also be applied to the use of technology, and therefore, the attention crisis will not always be such a crisis. Carr thinks the opposite will happen. He believes that technology will eventually stretch our minds way too thin, sacrificing the complexity of human minds. Specifically, he argues “As we are drained of our “inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance,” Foreman concluded, we risk turning into “pancake people”-spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.” Carr believes the evolution of technology will only serve to hinder the human race. I believe both opinions, in their opposing views, have their merits. I agree with Carr in that right now it may seem like technology is just making people more flat, but I believe this will change with time. As we learn to coevolve with technology the longer it is around, I believe we will become used to it, and once again be able to function as we did before. The human mind is so amazing in its ability to adapt to new situations. How could technology, which is just a new thing to evolve with, not apply in this case? And so, my opinions line up more closely to Anderson’s.
800 word draft
Distraction, like many other things, has evolved over the years. It is only natural that while humans evolve, modes of distraction and our responses to them evolve simultaneously. Today, the main mode of distraction is technology, and most people are just starting to form their own opinions about it. Since it is a highly debatable topic, it is only natural that people can have perspectives from the opposite ends of the spectrum. Nicholas Carr, a journalist who mostly writes about the effects of technology, laments that it is stealing his ability to think deeply in his article, Is Google Making Us Stupid? On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sam Anderson, a writer for the New York Times Magazine, talks about how he has noticed technology affecting people, and then “defends” it in his article, In Defense of Distraction. While Carr feels that technology is reducing our human complexity, Anderson argues that it actually increases it, because it forces our brains to change. While I understand where Carr is coming from, I believe that Anderson’s view is more compelling. Since evolution is a natural part of life, I don’t believe that technology will always have the effects that Carr describes, though I do realize that it is an issue now.
The brain is the most complex part of the human body, and consequently isn’t 100% understood now. What we do know is that it is very elastic and therefore has the ability to adapt to many situations. I believe technology is therefore adaptable, even within one’s lifetime. Anderson shares the same view. While he discusses the fact that there is currently an attention crisis, he doesn’t necessarily see this as a bad thing in the long run, arguing that, “More than any other organ, the brain is designed to change based on experience, a feature called neuroplasticity. London taxi drivers, for instance, have enlarged hippocampi…a neural reward for paying attention to the city’s streets. As we become more skilled in the 21st century task Mayer calls “flitting,” the wiring of the brain will inevitably change to deal more efficiently with more information.” Here, Anderson describes neuroplasticity, which is the brain’s ability to learn and adapt during one’s lifetime. He believes this ability can also be applied to the use of technology, and therefore, the attention crisis will not always be such a crisis. Carr thinks the opposite will happen. He believes that technology will eventually stretch our minds way too thin, sacrificing the complexity of human minds. Specifically, he argues “As we are drained of our “inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance,” Foreman concluded, we risk turning into “pancake people”-spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.” Carr believes the evolution of technology will only serve to hinder the human race. I believe both opinions, in their opposing views, have their merits. I agree with Carr in that right now it may seem like technology is just making people more flat, but I believe this will change with time. As we learn to coevolve with technology the longer it is around, I believe we will become used to it, and once again be able to function as we did before. The human mind is so amazing in its ability to adapt to new situations. How could technology, which is just a new thing to evolve with, not apply in this case? And so, my opinions line up more closely to Anderson’s.
While I understand the apprehension people have towards technology, it is a fact that it is now intricately woven into our lives. Anderson brings up a great point when it comes to this concept, saying we have come to rely on technology to a point where we can’t easily go back. His argument is, “…the virtual horse has already left the digital barn. It’s too late to just retreat to a quieter time. Our jobs depend on connectivity. Our pleasure-cycles, not trivial matter, are increasingly tied to it.” While it is a common opinion that we spend too much time on technology, it is also a fact that, in some ways, it is needed in order to function in today’s society. But do we really know everything about technology? Carr argues that we don’t fully know what technology does to our minds. In a way, he agrees with Anderson, but he also adds on his own worries: “Never has a communication system played so many roles in our lives-or exerted such a broad influence over our thoughts-as the internet does today. Yet, for all that’s been written about the Net, there’s been little consideration of how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us. The net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure.” While Anderson points out that we can’t just abandon technology because we may have come to wholly depend on it, Carr points out that we don’t know the effects of technology. In this way, we are sort of stuck. We can’t go back, because we need technology, but we also can’t move forward too fast because we don’t know the true effects of it. Society has become so obsessed with producing the newest technology, like Apple with their yearly new phones. Obsession with the new is, ironically, a very old concept, but technology isn’t something that should be rushed all the time. Speeding along new, beneficial technology has its perks, but along with it comes the other companies, most looking for profit, developing new technologies that we just don’t know the full effects of yet. Slowing down the production of technology could reduce the pressure of this stalemate we are in: we can’t go back, but is the future any better? Slowing down technology would allow us to study more closely not only the effects of technology on our minds, but also the effectiveness of technology in the role it was made for.
1200 word draft
Distraction, like many other things, has evolved over the years. It is only natural that while humans evolve, modes of distraction and our responses to them evolve simultaneously. Today, the main mode of distraction is technology, and most people are just starting to form their own opinions about it. Since it is a highly debatable topic, it is only natural that people can have perspectives from the opposite ends of the spectrum. Nicholas Carr, a journalist who mostly writes about the effects of technology, laments that it is stealing his ability to think deeply in his article, Is Google Making Us Stupid? On the opposite end of the spectrum, Sam Anderson, a writer for the New York Times Magazine, talks about how he has noticed technology affecting people, and then “defends” it in his article, In Defense of Distraction. While Carr feels that technology is reducing our human complexity, Anderson argues that it actually increases it, because it forces our brains to change. While I understand where Carr is coming from, I believe that Anderson’s view is more compelling. Since evolution is a natural part of life, I don’t believe that technology will always have the effects that Carr describes, though I do realize that it is an issue now, and the fast-paced development of technology may not be helping either.
The brain is the most complex part of the human body, and consequently isn’t 100% understood now. What we do know is that it is very elastic and therefore has the ability to adapt to many situations. I believe technology is therefore adaptable, even within one’s lifetime. Anderson shares the same view. While he discusses the fact that there is currently an attention crisis, he doesn’t necessarily see this as a bad thing in the long run, arguing that, “More than any other organ, the brain is designed to change based on experience, a feature called neuroplasticity. London taxi drivers, for instance, have enlarged hippocampi…a neural reward for paying attention to the city’s streets. As we become more skilled in the 21st century task Mayer calls “flitting,” the wiring of the brain will inevitably change to deal more efficiently with more information.” Here, Anderson describes neuroplasticity, which is the brain’s ability to learn and adapt during one’s lifetime. He believes this ability can also be applied to the use of technology, and therefore, the attention crisis will not always be such a crisis. Carr thinks the opposite will happen. He believes that technology will stretch our minds way too thin, sacrificing the complexity of human minds. Specifically, he argues “As we are drained of our “inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance,” Foreman concluded, we risk turning into “pancake people”-spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.” Carr believes the evolution of technology will only serve to hinder the growth of human minds. We will no longer be building upon previous experiences like we used to, but rather sloppily shoving information into our minds in a haphazard fashion. I believe both opinions, in their opposing views, have their merits. I agree with Carr in that right now it may seem like technology is just making people more flat, but I believe this will change with time. At this moment, technology is very new and we don’t quite understand how to use it in the healthiest way possible. As we learn to coevolve with technology the longer it is around, I believe we will become used to it, and once again be able to function as we did before. The human mind is so amazing in its ability to adapt to new situations. How could technology, which is just a new thing to evolve with, not apply in this case? We learned to live with writing, then typewriters and even fundamental theories like germ theory and the theory of evolution, which all produced similar apprehensions in society.
While I understand the apprehension people have towards technology, it is a fact that it is now intricately woven into our lives. Anderson brings up a great point when it comes to this concept, saying we have come to rely on technology to a point where we can’t easily go back. His argument is, “…the virtual horse has already left the digital barn. It’s too late to just retreat to a quieter time. Our jobs depend on connectivity. Our pleasure-cycles, not trivial matter, are increasingly tied to it.” While it is a common opinion that we spend too much time using technology, it is also a fact that, in some ways, it is needed in order to function in today’s society. But do we really know everything about technology, something that is so central to life today? Carr argues that we don’t fully know what technology does to our minds. In a way, he agrees with Anderson, but he also adds on his own worries: “Never has a communication system played so many roles in our lives-or exerted such a broad influence over our thoughts-as the internet does today. Yet, for all that’s been written about the Net, there’s been little consideration of how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us. The net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure.” While Anderson points out that we can’t just abandon technology because we may have come to wholly depend on it, Carr points out that we also don’t know the true effects of technology. In this way, we are sort of stuck. We can’t go back, because we need technology to function as a society today, but we also can’t move forward too fast because we don’t know the true consequences of it. Society has become so obsessed with producing the newest technology, like Apple with their yearly new phones, and many customers have become obsessed with owning the newest thing. Obsession with the new is, ironically, a very old concept, but technology isn’t something that should be rushed all the time. Constantly developing new technology that directly benefits society, like new surgical tools, has its perks, but along with it comes the other companies, most looking for profit, developing new technologies that we just don’t know the full effects of yet. Slowing down the production of technology could reduce the pressure of this stalemate we are in: we can’t go back, but is the future any better? Slowing down technology would allow us to study more closely not only the effects of technology on our minds, but also the effectiveness of technology in the role it was made for.
I am not against technology, and often enjoy new developments-I am, in fact, sitting here writing on my new computer. But, I understand why there is a lot of reluctance to fully embrace it into society. Many people have noticed technology reducing attention spans and deep thinking skills, and I can understand that the fast-paced development of technology is certainly not helping these issues. But, I also believe that the human brain is very resilient and adaptable, so this may not be an issue forever. Technology may be producing some negative effects in the minds of many people, but I think all it takes is time to really get used to what we have. Kids growing up with technology should be taught how to use it responsibly, and may even learn how to read deeply on the computer, just as they had on paper. Coming from personal experience, technology does make it easier to access information needed for school, but when I find it, I have to read it just as deeply as I did when I am given a paper in class. Finding what you really need online and ignoring what you don’t is a skill that takes time to develop, and is a relatively new one, considering the internet provides so many distractions. Taking it slow and making thoughtful decisions about your technology use while waiting for your brain to catch up might reduce a lot of anxiety and even symptoms people are describing when it comes to using their technology.
