Excellent post @Krusty13 .. IMO It all comes down to the specific person "Googling"!.. I would suggest that Google makes Intelligent people more knowledgeable yet has the opposite effect on less Intelligent people.. Those with a "Thirst for Knowledge" and a mind that is forever generating questions emanating from that thirst can find a wealth of Facts/ Research / Opinions through their search engine of choice.. Whereas those without that desire to gain knowledge will perhaps use their search engines to find videos of "Animals doing the funniest things" for example.. Intelligence may not be the only factor at play here either..... A persons susceptibility level could also determine what they "Google". The desire to be liked /fit In/ Conform may push someone to deny their own instincts with regards to what they watch/ listen to/ believe/ or become interested in. One only has to look at the Asch Conformity experiments of the 1950s to see the effect that Social pressure can have on a persons opinions or beliefs.
It's a very relevant question to ask if we're made better or worse for the easy access to search engines. I'm more interested in how our memory strategies have changed because of increasing access and reliance on the internet. There was an interesting study from 2011 which made an alternative proposal: that our cognition is adapting to use the internet as an external memory storage: Sparrow, B, J Liu, and D M. Wegner. (2011). “Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips.” Science. 333.6043: 776-778. The authors found that when we read something that we expect to have access to later, we're far less inclined to remember all the details and instead remember where we found it or how we could access it later. Conversely we tend to have better recall of information we think we're going to need to recall unaided. This may be the way our memories may have evolved to work, with the social theory of transactive memory where we rely on knowing who in a social group has particular knowledge (specialised or general) that may be useful when the need arise. The study also showed that when we need knowledge, we tend to think of the internet almost as a social source. They argue that we interact with the internet using transactive memory processes, having access to a wider range of knowledge by remembering how we can retrieve it. Essentially they believe the internet promotes meta-memory: we have placeholders for information but not the information itself. In an age where we're exposed to more information that at any other point in recorded history, it's probably the most efficient way to deal with knowledge outside of our interests or specialties.
i am more afraid of those smombies (short for: smartphone zombies) - they are fixed to to the phone and dont get whats happening around. google ofc makes us dumb, but its not google alone, all searchengines. knowledge is only really valuable when its currently present. what about if no web is present? using a telephone joker? so people have more capacity in mind for stupid stuff like pokemon go and more time to view (***) videos on youtube aso.
Yeah isn't that the truth Peter. I'm still using the old Verizon flip phone, good enough for me. As I get older I'll probably upgrade to the "Jitterbug", larger numbers.
Thanks for the link @RJK3 ... That is a very interesting paper,......studying comparisons between the remembering of "Facts" versus the "Source" of those facts and in relation to whether the source/or fact would be erased thereafter... ..IMO It is interesting to consider whether findings may have differed in a study concerning a persons memory storage/ recollection of "Opinions" as opposed to "Facts"..... A "Fact" is absolute ,whereas an "Opinion" is not. A "Fact" (whether One remembers it directly,or by its source) could be considered to be "one" piece of Data, and requires no more action other than to remember it.... Whereas an "Opinion" will have at least one counter-argument (Second piece of data) and will require an individual to either make a choice as to which of the two pieces of data He/She agrees with, or perhaps instead create an individual opinion that differs from any of those given.(Third piece of Data)... IMO the storage/ recollection of a persons own opinion ,(if it has itself been formed by exposure to the differing opinions of others) would be easier to recollect than a solitary fact, and that an individual should remember how they reached / why they hold their opinion,even if they cannot recollect the specific sources that aided its formation.. Perhaps then "Googling to find a Fact" would differ from "Googling to find Opinions" It may also be worth noting that the line between "Fact" and "Opinion" is blurred ,and that many people struggle to differentiate between opinions and facts on a daily basis,...and may often consider fact what is instead only an opinion.
Yeah because when you don't understand a word, or how to do something, being able to Google, Wikipedia, Dictionary or YouTube a "howto" video on your smartphone makes you dumber. Facepalm... Who would have thought a miniature library in your hand makes you dumber, I wonder...
Both my smartphone and google or youtube have come in really handy so often for me looking up how to videos and other useful info to gain knowledge and solve problems. I've also wasted a lot of time with pointless, silly surfing and entertainment, but I try to strike a balance between that and getting out often enough to "smell the roses".
Thanks, you're right it was. I had only planned to read the news story today, but had searched it for reference of Sparrow's 2011 research so that I wasn't duplicating anything. Typically if you were only to mention one name involved in research, the first name on a published journal article would be the one you'd use. Strangely news story has chosen to attribute it entirely to Daniel Wegner, who was actually the last name of three on that paper. e.g. the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-is-technology-making-us-stupid-10391564.html
Yes. I had a coworker that liked to claim that people keep getting smarter and I asked him if he found that on google too...
I've watched the video and it was in relation to Fox News and its biased reporting. IMO Google apart from privacy issues, it is an enormous source of information at your finger tips (not just Google but the Internet itself). In the pre-internet age I used to spend hours in libraries doing research... Nowadays computers allow us to do these activities from the comfort of our homes. How can this be negative? Yes there are instances of misinformation and disinformation, but by and large research online has been a godsend. On the other hand television has definitely had a dumb down effect on many people, TV viewers just sit there without any possibility to interact, absorbing news and interpretations that more often than not are mendacious...
One could often meet interesting new people in the library, sometimes with the potential for a relationship. If there's a smart person in your home, you've already met him or her.
Yeah well, I didn't write the story, just posted a link. Others can make up their own mind about the content.
Unfortunately, some people treat the Internet exactly how they treat TV, and the effects are more or less the same...
Google is a search engine not a creator of information. Its purpose is to make it easy to access whatever a user is interested in. The information provided from a search argument comes from scanning news media, newspapers, magazines, white-papers, fiction, non-fiction, how-to, entertainment, views and opinions. It is up to the user to turn this Information into knowledge. No matter how knowledge is obtained it should add value in some form or another. It doesn't improve your IQ. Knowledge helps you make smarter decisions.
"There's a guy in this coffee shop sitting at a table, not on his phone, not on a laptop, just drinking coffee, like a psychopath."