The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains

http://jseliger.com/2010/06/28/the-shallows-what-the-internet-is-doing-to-our-brains-nicholar-carr

by jseliger • 16 years ago

21 16 16 years ago

pavs• 16 years ago

A bit off-topic. I have been using Readability on every block of text I come over on the internet. I have noticed 3 changes on my reading style over the last 6 months:

1) I read more often, instead of skimming.

2) I am less likely to click on links within articles, more so now that readability lets you configure it to show links as footnotes. If I am extremely curious I will check out the links after finishing the article.

3) I am so used to the beige background and typography of choice on my custom readability setup that I find it hard to read texts on any other typography or on any other background (esp. white background).

This leads me to believe that Nicholas Carr's hypothesis has a lot of merit in it. And even with six months worth of heavy Readability use (and I read a lot) I have essentially rewired my reading habit.

spudlyo• 16 years ago

I think Readability has raised my standards of what I consider 'readable'. I find myself using it all the time now as well. I've also noticed that I skim less with it. I'll be honest though, I struggled to finish this article. I'm not sure if it was due to my attention span or because it just wasn't that engaging.

DLWormwood2• 16 years ago

> I'm not sure if it was due to my attention span or because it just wasn't that engaging.

…or outright sabotage by the writer. He challenges (more like, dares) the reader on a couple of occasions to remember something he wrote earlier in the article.

orev• 16 years ago

Only the sugary candy of the Internet encourages this, just like in any other venue. One can read crappy magazines or scientific journals. One can read trashy romance novels or literature. One can watch reality TV or in-depth documentaries. Online, one can spend the day playing farmville or they can check out the Open university, MIT's online courses, or any other of unlimited options.

The Internet provides never before seen access to information, and just like with any other part of life, it's up to each person to make sure they get a balanced intake.

The Internet is not encouraging this, it's the people. With great power comes great responsibility.

stratospark• 16 years ago

Having read Carr's book, he also mentions the fact that so much of our social lives has found its way online, that people can feel disconnected if they're away from their Facebook, or Twitter stream, or IM, or on demand email.

You're point is valid, that it's up to each one of us to find the right balance. It just becomes harder when unplugging from the Net is the modern day equivalent of pulling a Thoreau.

reader5000• 16 years ago

I think the distractive power of the internet is the key point, and is and will be a major sociological factor. A (to me) related book is Bowling Alone which discusses the decline of community in America. I think the two are linked: in place of constant electronic stimulation people don't just sit around staring at a wall: they tend to create and participate in social organizations, whether it be casual neighborhood card games, a church group, civic organization, etc. However the Internet and television inhibit this because it is just too easy to get an Internet fix and not be aware you are sitting alone in a room staring at an lcd reading the anonymous words of people you will never actually meet or know.

I have a script on my computer to disable my internet during the 9-5 on weekdays so that I can actually think. It still doesn't work; I manually override it probably 20min in everyday.

silentbicycle• 16 years ago

Yes, but at the same time, it has also made it easier to (say) connect with other foodies in Grand Rapids, MI. Not everything is purely about snarking on clueless schmucks on the internets.

While there's clearly a point at which the internet is a self-sustaining asocial distraction, it doesn't have to be that way. It can be used for local discussions to great effect.

Of course, not everybody exposed to the internet uses it in a social manner. Perhaps it just amplifies existing inclinations?

mhd• 16 years ago

This seems to be a common theme lately, as there are several articles about this, lots of software and the minimalism/uncluttering self-help niche has reached astronomic heights (which is probably somewhat ironic).

Similarly, people complain about the huge number of workday hours lost to Facebook browsing or people playing flash games or simply solitaire.

I'm a bit cautious about drawing too many conclusions there. I think we've always been very easy to distract, any excuse was okay. We just have more and easier excuses right now, especially at places where just a few years ago, you couldn't be as easily distracted. At home, with friends calling, books in your library, a TV, your spouse, kids, etc, distraction was common place, and as you didn't feel like you were losing productivity, nobody really complained.

That's one of the reasons why people were forced into cubicles -- minimize potentials for distracting interaction. Now graphical computer interfaces, the internet and mobile phones made it possible for you to waste enough time, while sitting perfectly still. No wonder that a lot of journalists complain about that. Just a few years ago, they were sitting in front of typewriters (or DOS machines with XyWrite), where focus was no problem. Now it's not that easy anymore.

But is forcibly blocking this really the ultimate solution? /etc/hosts, Freedom, cubicles, log cabins, monasteries… Don't we just fight a symptom that we should tackle otherwise? There's probably some evolutionary reason why we're prone to this ("There, a sabretooth tiger!"), but only to a certain point. I think above that, you want to be distracted and thus easily give in to temptation.

It's like when we were kids. Cleaning up your room, then your neighbor throws pebbles against your window? Off you go! But when you're all centered on playing with your Legos, your Mom has trouble getting you to dinner.

Maybe we shouldn't try as much to be monks, but set out to change our lives to contain more Legos.

DLWormwood2• 16 years ago

> But is forcibly blocking this really the ultimate solution? /etc/hosts, Freedom, cubicles, log cabins, monasteries… Don't we just fight a symptom that we should tackle otherwise? There's probably some evolutionary reason why we're prone to this ("There, a sabretooth tiger!"), but only to a certain point. I think above that, you want to be distracted and thus easily give in to temptation.

Precisely what I was thinking reading this article. Despite being a relative early adopter of the ’Net due to my college exposure last millenium, I’ve never really lost my ability to read or focus on a task… if I’m willing to do it. I didn’t feel tempted to follow any of those links in the article, for example.

That said, with my recent bout of self-employment, I’ve found David Letterman’s pronouncement that the iPad is the “ultimate in procrastination technology” to be mostly true. However, everytime I let this happen, I conclude that it is a sign of my being afraid or reluctant to do something related to my current task. Once I solve that underlying problem, I get productive again.

I think the takeaway from the above is that in recent times, people only seem to be more easily distracted, because, IMHO, that people, for some reason or another, have become more likely to do work or take on tasks that deep down they really don’t want to do. It isn’t just the current recession, but something deep in our hireing practices or job opportunities that is letting humanity down…

benatkin• 16 years ago

I've noticed it's a common theme, too. I keep hearing the phrase "digital detox". Maybe it's a Boulder thing. I'm not sure I like the phrase, but I like the idea of taking breaks more than I like the idea of fighting the change.

I read books like Rainbows End and articles by Ray Kurzweil and it just doesn't bother me.

http://gapingvoid.com/2006/09/17/the-future-belongs-to-the-g...

henrikschroder• 16 years ago

There, a sabretooth tiger!

Where? Where? Come on, let's go! We're losing it! I think I can see it over there! Let's go hunt! Wheeeeeeeeeee!

I'm sorry, where you saying something important?

_delirium• 16 years ago

FWIW, here's the author of that book on the Colbert Report a few days ago: http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/wed-june-30-2010-...

(Yes, I just watched that video, and then posted about it on HN, instead of doing more productive things.)

CitizenKane• 16 years ago

One thing that has been pointed out in the article is how inline links can be exteremly distracting. They encourage you to take a break in the middle of reading something and go read something else.

One thing I've found helpful is in readability[1] which can take inline links and make them footnotes. I've also made a Drupal module[2] which acts as an input filter so you can do inline links as you write (to not break up your flow of writing) and have them automatically be turned into footnotes (which will work with WYSIWYG and Markdown as well). It's really nice and I've found it's something that help promotes a reading style which is more linear.

[1] http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/ [2] http://github.com/codeincarnate/Drupal-Footnote-Links

robryan• 16 years ago

I usually skip right over them unless the article is about something I'm really interested in. For example this article the inline links didn't raise enough interest for me to get distracted by them but the article was interesting enough to read through.

nazgulnarsil• 16 years ago

historically there has always been a cottage industry in decrying the new as dangerous. the otherwise terrible movie The Year One had a funny sequence on this where bronze is being introduced, much to the dismay of the stone knappers.

billswift• 16 years ago

Not exactly new, this is one theme from Stephen Talbott's 1995 book The Future Does Not Compute. There are many things I disagree with in it, but I strongly agree about his description that the internet, results in a "scattering of attention" and that incoming messages (email) increases the "fragmentation in the modern office".

On a more personal note, I have noticed a distinct distraction factor to having the internet available, and a significant difficulty in concentrating for longer periods on books. In the late 1990s through 2002 I read over 100 new books every year (that is books that I had not read before and that I read the entire book - I didn't keep track of re-reading and reading articles or chapters here and there). Since I have been on the internet, I have read fewer books each year - 96 in 2004 down to 44 last year. I didn't actually realize it was that bad until I just looked up the numbers for this comment.

The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains

Related Stories