Final Essay

Ally Ferrell

RWS 100

Professor Werry

December 15, 2014

Final Paper

Just a few decades ago, the internet was made available to the general public for the first time. Almost everyone you see will have access to the web sitting in their pocket or even just at the tip of their fingers. The internet is used for research, communication, entertainment, shopping and so much more. I couldn't imagine that there is a person in any developed country over the age of 5 that doesn't know what Google is. There is no doubt that this technology has completely changed the way that us humans live. One thing that most can agree on is that the internet is in fact changing the way we think. However, many disagree on whether is is a negative or positive change. It’s important to discuss the effects of the internet because of its relevance in our society. It’s not going away any time soon. Many people have researched and shared their personal opinions on the topic to the public. Nicholas Carr is a columnist and author who focuses on the affect of technology on our mentality. In, Carr’s article,“Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, from The Atlantic, he argues that the internet is negatively affecting our minds. Clive Thompson has been a long-time writer for the New York Times Magazine and focuses on writing about digital technologies and their social and cultural impact. In Thompson’s article, “Public Thinking”, from his book, Smarter Than You Think, he claims that the internet is positively affecting our minds due to the writing and publicness of it. Howard Rheingold, an author who as always been intrigued in the effects of technology on the mind, claims in his article "Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies” that the internet helps our brains in many ways. In this essay, I will explain Carr’s ,Thompson’s, and Rheingold’s general views and opinions and a few of their specific sub-arguments. I will then enter the conversation, arguing my point on the topic using outside sources and personal experiences as evidence.

In Nicholas Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, from The Atlantic, he claims that the current amount of use of the internet has serious negative effects on our cognitive behavior. One of his main sub-claims is that the use of the internet is worsening our ability to concentrate on one thing for a long period of time. He gives a personal example of when he tries to read a book in present day, “my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do” (Carr). He argues that with all of the hyperlinks and distractions on the internet, we are constantly switching focus from one thing to another. With today’s technology, one is able to have multiple tabs open, quickly switching between them as he or she pleases. Carr believes that this habit transfers over to real life as we are unintentionally learning to not be able to concentrate on one thing at a time. Another of Carr’s sub-claims is that we are also reading less quality works than before, which is not helping us become any more intelligent. Anyone can post on the internet and it’s hard to tell whats credible or not. Also, because the internet is a main media for entertainment, we are reading things that we enjoy rather than educational things. In their personal time, a person would probably rather read the more entertaining story about Kim Kardashian’s nudes leaking than a report on A person is far more likely to find false information on the internet and believe it, therefor causing deteriorating intelligence.

Contrary to Carr, in Clive Thompson’s essay, “Public Thinking”, from his book, Smarter Than You Think, he claims that the internet is actually improving our overall cognitive behavior. Thompson says “There are thousands of other forums crammed full of writing, ranging from twenty-six thousand Star Wars stories to more than seventeen hundred pieces riffing off Shakespeare’s works” (Thompson). With all of the options, of course we are going to switch from page to page. Thompson argues that the internet now has more things that actually interest people, so they are reading more. People may be switching sites more often, but they are reading more over all. Also, when one reads something that interests them, they are more likely to retain the information. However, Thompson goes on to argue that it isn't the reading we do, but in fact  the increase of writing due to the internet. He claims that “the internet has produced a foaming Niagara of writing”(Thompson). He goes on to impose that writing for an audience, even if its small helps people form ideas into words, create new ideas, and share information. Knowing people will be reading your writing, will usually cause you to think more about what you are going to say and create a more compelling and supported argument. Thompson is saying that we may do more reading and that it helps our minds, but that isn't as important as the writing we do.

Howard Rheingold, in his article "Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies”, focuses more on the effects social medias have on our minds. Rheingold argues that by using social medias, such as Twitter and Facebook, we work on our attention, participation, collaboration, network awareness and critical consumption. He complicates Carr’s claim that the internet worsens our complete attention to one thing at a time by arguing that the shared focus actually helps with multitasking. He says that attention is the "fundamental building block of how individuals" think, create tools, socialize, and transform civilizations. Contrary to Carr, Rheingold quotes Linda Stone who says that multitasking and continuous partial attention is just as good to work on as focused attention.(Rheingold). We need to know both so that we know how to focus on multiple things at once or on just one thing when necessary. The internet and distractions that come with it help form the skill of multi-tasking. Rheingold again complicates Carr’s claim that the internet is causing us to read non-quality works, lowering our intelligence. He argues that we are learning critical consumption, or what Ernest Hemingway called “crap detection”(Rheingold). This is the ability to find out what and who is trustworthy. We do this on the internet all the time when researching. People are, for the most part, aware that anybody can post on the internet. This awareness creates a sense of caution. We practice identifying bias and non-credible sources. 

As an 18-year old college student in 2014, technology and the internet are and always have been extremely relevant in my life. My laptop is my lifeline for class and entertainment. As I write this essay right now, I have two different documents open on Word, five tabs open on my internet browser, and my online calendar and iTunes minimized. 100% of the homework and projects I do for school is online.  My major is mechanical engineering and both of the classes I am taking for it right now are on a computer. The other day, I was doing some of my online physics homework and couldn't figure out a question. I quickly opened a new tab, copied and pasted the question, and found the solution on yahoo answers. I could have easily just copied the answer and submitted it for full credit, but instead I looked at the process and learned how the answer was found. Instead of just leaving this question blank or spending 20 minutes searching through my text book to only see the formulas I already knew, I instantly learned how to get the answer.

When it comes to my opinion on the subject, I automatically find myself agreeing mostly with Thompson and Rheingold, however, I think that,like most people, I just want to think the best of myself. I grew up with the internet and want to believe that it has helped me become as educated and as studious as I possibly can be. I took a step back, did some of my own research, and came up with a more unbiased opinion. All three authors bring up great points. This topic isn't just black and white, it has to be some shade of grey. These men all have valid points, however, they all fail to bring up an important point relevant to the topic. The authors are putting the entire fate of our minds up to the internet, and put no responsibility on the user. The internet is extremely relevant and isn't going away anytime soon, so no matter the effects of it, we should be focusing more on how to use it to its maximum potential rather than if we should use it at all or not. Many schools are considering replacing textbooks with tablets. Besides the pros and cons related to price and physical health, there are also many pros and cons of the effects to the mind and learning considered by “Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?”. One of the pros argued is that “tablets help students learn more material faster. Technology-based instruction can reduce the time students take to reach a learning objective by 30-80%, according to the US Department of Education and studies by the National Training and Simulation Association”. Instead of telling kids to put down their phones and to go read a book, we should be teaching them how to use their phone for more educational purposes. So many people do things only if it is convenient to them. The internet saves time and “time is money”.  And it is so much easier to quickly type something into a search engine than go to a library. When in class, if a topic sparks interest to a student, he or she can quickly and immediately google more info on the topic and share with the class to start a group discussion. This promotes the learning of research and group arguments and discussions. Of course there is the counterargument that kids will just use the tablets for entertainment, uneducational sites, and distractions. My response to that is that there always has been and there will always be the people who don't use their resources wisely. Regardless if it a library or a tablet, some people will use it to its full potential and some will not. When the internet was not around and the only way to find out the answer to a question was to go to the library, there were people who would go to the library and people who wouldn’t. It’s all about the inclination and personal values of the person.

Why is this important? Technology is advancing more and more every day. If we can not learn to use our current technology to its full potential, we will never be able to progress as a society. Way back when writing became easier for the general public to do, some philosophers claimed that this would hurt our minds, similar what to people are saying about the internet in present day. Where would we be today if we had listened to them? The internet is not going away, it is only going to be more advanced and have easier access. In order to advance as a society, we need to use the tools we have to its maximum potential.

Works Cited

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”  The Atlantic. July/August 2008. Web.

Thompson, Clive. “Public Thinking_.” Smarter Than You Think: How Technology Is Changing 

Our Minds for the Better. N.p: Penguin, 2014. 45-69. Print.

Rheingold, Howard. “Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies”. Educase 

Review Online. October 7, 2010. Web.

“Should Tablets Replace Textbooks in K-12 Schools?” ProCon.  April 9, 2014. Web. 

http://www.tablets-textbooks.procon.org

Rough Draft

Just a few decades ago, the internet was made available to the general public for the first time. There is no doubt that this technology has completely changed the way that humans live, interact, and think. But many disagree on whether is is a negative or positive change. One thing that most can agree on is that the internet is in fact changing the way we think. In, Carr’s article he argues that the internet is negatively affecting our minds while in Thompson’s article, he claims that the internet is positively affecting our minds. In this essay, I will explain Carr’s and Thompson’s general views and opinions on specifically how internet affects our concentration  and attention and our reading and writing skills. I will then enter the conversation, arguing my point on the topic using outside sources as evidence.

In Nicholas Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, from The Atlantic, he claims that the current amount of use of the internet has serious negative effects on our cognitive behavior. He argues that the internet is worsening our ability to concentrate on one thing for a long period of time. He gives a personal example, “my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidget, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do” (Carr). He argues that with all of the hyperlinks and distractions on the internet, we are constantly switching focus and unintentionally learning not to be able to concentrate on one thing.  Carr also claims that we are also reading less quality works than before, therefore  not helping us become more intelligent. Anyone can post on the internet and it’s hard to tell whats credible or not. A person is far more likely to find false information on the internet and believe it, therefor causing worsening intelligence.

Contrary to Carr, in Clive Thompson’s essay, “Public Thinking”, from his book, Smarter Than You Think, he claims that the internet is actually improving our overall cognitive behavior. Thompson says “There are thousands of other forums crammed full of writing, ranging from twenty-six thousand Star Wars stories to more than seventeen hundred pieces riffing off Shakespeare’s works” (Thompson). With all of the options, of course we are going to switch from page to page. Thompson argues that the internet now has more things that actually interest people, so they are reading more. People may be switching sites more often, but they are reading more over all. Also, when one reads something that interests them, they are more likely to retain the information. However, Thompson goes on to claim that it isn't the reading we do, but the increase of writing due to the internet. Writing helps people form ideas into words, create new ideas, and share information. Carr claims that our thinking is worsening because we get distracted while we read, but Thompson claims that it’s the writing that we do on the internet that helps us rather than the reading.

As an 18-year old college student in 2014, technology and the internet are extremely relevant in my life. My laptop is my lifeline for class and entertainment. As I write this essay right now, I have two different documents open on Word, five tabs open on my internet browser, and my online calendar and iTunes minimized. Come midterm week and you will see my computer glued to me. 100% of the homework and projects I do for school is online. Yesterday I was doing some of my online physics homework and couldn't figure out a question. I quickly opened a new tab, copied and pasted the question, and found the solution on yahoo answers. I could have easily just copied the answer and submitted it for full credit, but instead I looked at the process and learned how the answer was found. When I have a random question about anything that popped into my head because something that happened that day, I can google it and find out the answer. This leads me too pages and links to other pages about the topic, which I will often read through. I am pretty sure that if I had a question and didn't have access to google, I would not go to the library and find a book with the answer. It is said that time is money so it shouldn't be wasted. Google offers the opportunity to educate one’s self in minimal time.

When it comes to my opinion on the subject, I find myself agreeing mostly with Thompson’s overall view, that the internet is good for our mental skills. However, both authors fail to bring up some important points relevant to the topic. Both authors are putting the entire fate of our minds up to the internet, and put no responsibility on the user. The internet is extremely relevant and isn't going away anytime soon. People could easily use the internet only for plagiarism, looking up answers for homework, and unconstructive uses. But there are so many people who use it wisely. We need to focus more on teaching people on how to use the internet for more educational uses. Instead of just telling kids to put down their phone and go to the library and read a book, we should be telling kids to download the book app, learn how to use an online data base, etc.

outline

outline : 

focus 1: concentration/attention

focus 2 : writing/reading

• Intro 
• attention getter
• background info
• metadiscourse

• Carr
• carr’s overall claim
• the internet has serious negative effects on our cognitive behavior
• carr’s sub claim
• the internet is worsening our concentration
• quote from carr to support his subclaim
• explanation/analysis of claim
• carr’s second sub claim
• were reading less and less quality things than ever
• quote from second sub claim
• explanation/analysis of second sub claim 
• transition to thompson

• Thompson
• thompsons overall claim 
• the internet has improved our overall cognitive behavior
• thompsons first sub claim
• quote for first sub claim
• analysis/explanation of first sub claim and how connects with carr’s first sub claim 
• thompsons second sub claim
• we may not be reading as much, but we are writing and participating which is more important
• quote for second sub claim
• explanation/analysis of sub claim 2 and how connects with car’s second sub claim
• transition to my argument( strengths and weaknesses of carr and thompson)

• my argument 
• anecdote
• my main claim
• the internet can have negative and positive effects, it all depends on how its used
• my first sub claim
• the internet helps us to learn multitasking
• quote from rheingold to support my first sub claim
• how my first sub claim connects to carr and thompson’s first sub claims
• my second sub claim
• the internet has caused us to produce less original works, plagiarism and copyright
• quote from Hayles to support my second sub claim
• how my second cub claim connects to carr and thompsons second sub claim
• what they dont bring up and my opinion

• conclusion
• so what?
• what we can do to improve

• annotated bibliography

Annotated Bibliography

Carr’s claim: The internet is worsening out concentration and focus in the real world. 

My claim : The internet does cause distractions from many things, however it isn't always a bad thing. It can be an educational distraction and it can teach a person to multitask. Some people may use it irresponsibly, just for games and plagiarism, while others use it to learn and connect with others. It depends on the user whether or not the internet is beneficial or not. The internet isn't just going away, we need to use it and learn how to use it to its maximum potential.

I will use Thompson to complicate Carr’s claim that we may be reading on the internet, but it isn't quality. Thompson says that it’s the writing and publicness, not just the reading.

I will use Rheingold to complicate Carr’s claim that the internet causes distractions, because he agrees that it causes distractions, but he believes that these distractions are helpful to our real world multitasking problems. 

Outline

• Intro

• Carr’s argument

• Thompson complicates

• (Rheingold complicates)

• I complicate (with another source Hayle or Rheingold)

• So what?/conclusion

() one or the other

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”  The Atlantic. July/August 2008. Web.

Thompson, Clive. “Public Thinking_.” Smarter Than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better. N.p: Penguin, 2014. 45-69. Print.

Rheingold, Howard. “Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies”. Educase Review Online. October 7, 2010. Web.

Anecdote

As an 18-year old college student in 2014, technology and the internet are extremely relevant in my life. My laptop is my lifeline for class and entertainment. As I write this essay right now, I have two different documents open on Word, five tabs open on my internet browser, and my online calendar and iTunes minimized. Come midterm week and you will see my computer glued to me. 100% of the homework and projects I do for school is online. Yesterday I was doing some of my online physics homework and couldn't figure out a question. I quickly opened a new tab, copied and pasted the question, and found the solution on yahoo answers. I could have easily just copied the answer and submitted it for full credit, but instead I looked at the process and learned how the answer was found. When I have a random question about anything that popped into my head because something that happened that day, I can google it and find out the answer. This leads me too pages and links to other pages about the topic, which I will often read through. I am pretty sure that if I had a question and didn't have access to google, I would not go to the library and find a book with the answer. It is said that time is money so it shouldn't be wasted. Google offers the opportunity to educate one’s self in minimal time. 

If you look around San Diego State’s campus you are likely to see almost everyone else doing the same as me. Although, I am not guilty of this, you will also likely see students popping Adderal like it’s nothing. 100% of the homework and projects I do for school is online. 

Attention Literacies summary

"Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies " from Educase Review  by Howard Rheigngold, claims that we need to start utilizing the internet to its full potential. Rheingold challenges Carr by saying that social medias, such as Twitter and Facebook, actually improve our cognitive skills. He says we work on our attention, participation, collaboration, network awareness and critical consumption. Rheingold says that to master all of these skills, you must work on all of them, the come hand in hand. He then goes into detail about these 5 subjects. He says that attention is the "fundamental building block of how individuals" think, create tools, socialize, and transform civilizations. Contrary to Carr, Rheingold quotes Linda Stone who says that multitasking and continuous partial attention is just as good to work on as focused attention. We need to know both so that we know how to focus on multiple things at once or on just one thing when necessary. The internet and distractions that come with it help form the skill of multi-tasking. Rheingold then goes on to participation. He says that even if the thing you say isn't useful or good, it “gives one a different sense of being in the world”. He’s basically saying what Thompson quoted, “90% of everything is crap…” . Next is collaboration. Like Thompson said with the theory of multiples, Rheingold says “in general doing things together gives us more power than doing things alone”. Next network awareness. With the internet and social media, we are able to make more social interactions than ever which Rheingold connects with freedom. Finally critical consumption, which Ernest Hemingway called “crap detection”. This is the ability to find out what and who is trustworthy. We do this on the internet all the time and this helps with our real life skills.

Overall Rheingold is saying that the internet, more specifically social media, helps us with skills that carry over into real life.

Carr Rough Draft

Ally Ferrell

November 14, 2014

RWS 100

Professor Werry

Is Google Making Us Stupid Essay

Today, we have access to technology at just the tip of our fingers. Instead of going to the library and researching from books and journals, we are able to type in any question into Google and almost instantly have thousands of results.  My instinctive thought, along with many others', is that this technology and access to knowledge would actually improve how we think and the amount we learn. However, some claim that the advancement of technology has actually changed the way people think in a negative way. Nicholas Carr, a columnist and author who focuses on the affect of technology on our mentality, agrees with the latter. In Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, he claims that the extreme use and reliance of the internet has deteriorated people’s overall cognitive behavior. He believes that people have smaller attention spans and worsened critical thinking and reading skills. In this essay I will examine the rhetorical strategies Carr uses in his article, ethos, metaphors, and prolepsis. I will show how they support his argument, why he chooses the particular strategy and examine the overall effectiveness of support to his main claim of one of his strategies. 

One of the rhetorical strategies that Carr uses to help convince the reader of his argument is the Aristotelian appeals, ethos. Ethos is used to give credibility to the author. Carr states in the beginning of his article, “immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy” and “for more than a decade now, I’ve been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing”(58). This gives Carr credibility because it shows that he has actually experienced what he is writing about. He shows that he is a literary type and has used the internet often in the past decade. These two things are the main components of his claim. It’s hard to believe an author when he or she is talking about something that has never happened to them. He says that he is the literary type because if he just said that he uses the internet and can’t stay focused, there would be nothing to compare it to and his attention deficit could have easily been present before the internet use. By saying that this phenomenon has happened to him, he is far less likely to sound like it is just the "selfie generation" that isn't as advanced as previous generations and possibly offend the younger generations. I think that this strategy could have been much more effective in helping him support his claim. The magazine this article was posted in, The Atlantic, has a demographic of older people in the same generation as Carr. Throughout the essay, Carr uses sources and examples that are more relevant to the older generations.  It is unlikely that someone in their teens or early 20s would be reading this magazine. Also, he gives plenty of other examples of his friends and other people who have had the same effect from the internet, his personal example does not make much of a difference. I think that Carr would've developed a better credibility if he had talked more about his previous research,works, and his experience on the subject of the affect of the internet.

Another strategy that Carr uses is a metaphor. He compares the famous movie, “2001: A Space Odyssey” to present day. Carr quotes the movie when the character Dave takes apart HAL, the computer that runs the spaceship and has killed his crew mates. Carr quotes, “ ‘Dave,stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave?’ So the supercomputer HAL pleads with the implacable astronaut Dave Bowman, having nearly been sent to a deep-space death by the malfunctioning machine, is calmly, coldly disconnecting the memory circuits that control its artificial brain. ‘Dave, my mind is going,’ HAL says forlornly. ‘I can feel it. I can feel it.’ I can feel it, too. 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”(Carr p 58). Carr uses the disassembling of the computer’s memory as a metaphor to the disintegration of his and everyone elses’ memories due to technology. Carr chooses words such as “tinkering”, “circuitry”, and “reprogramming”. This word choice suggests that Carr feels like a robot. HAL, contrary to humans, was chained to a wall and could not stop his own disassembly. However, us humans have more control than that, or do we. This metaphor shows that Carr feels as though we are helpless to this change, just as HAL was. We have become addicted to the internet and the technology that we have such easy access to often at the end of our fingertips. 

Another way Carr attempts to convince his readers is his use of the strategy prolepsis. Prolepsis is the acknowledgement of a popular counterargument and addressing why it is wrong. This is necessary so that readers are not as easily able to tear apart an argument. If an author fails to bring up a common contrary belief, the readers may assume that he or she has not done research or just ignores others’ opinions. Carr says “Thanks to the ubiquity of text on the Internet, not to mention the popularity of text-messaging on cell phones, we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s… but it’s a different kind of reading, and behind it lies a different kind of thinking”(Carr p 60). Carr is bringing up the argument that since we are reading more than ever, we are thinking more and better. This argument can be seen in Clive Thompson’s popular article Public Thinking, which basically claims the exact opposite of Carr. If Carr had not brought this up, readers who may have read Thompson’s article or come up with the idea themselves would just assume that Carr completely missed that idea. By acknowledging it, he is able to show why he believes it is not true and give evidence for that. Although, Carr does bring up a part of Thompson’s counterargument, he doesn't bring up all of it. Thompson claims that the internet has improved are thinking because we are writing for the public more rather than reading more. Carr not bringing this up makes it seem like he’s just ignoring it because he does not have sufficient evidence to show why it is wrong.

In conclusion, Carr uses many strategies in his article in order to convince the reader, even though some of them may not be as effective as he thought. Because I am in the generation that grew up with constant access to the internet, it is difficult for me to tell how the internet has affected my thinking because I have nothing previous to compare it to. I personally am able to read long books but also get deferred from pages on my iPhone due to distractions. I think that Carr has a valid point, but the total effect the internet has depends on the impressionability of the person and is not as detrimental as Carr makes it out to be.

Edited intro and body paragraphs

Today, we have access to technology at just the tip of our fingers. Instead of going to the library and researching from books and journals, we are able to type in any question into Google and almost instantly have thousands of results.  My instinctive thought, along with many others', is that this technology and access to knowledge would actually improve how we think and the amount we learn. However, some claim that the advancement of technology has actually changed the way people think in a negative way. Nicholas Carr, a columnist and author who focuses on the affect of technology on our mentality, agrees with the latter. In Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, he claims that the extreme use and reliance of the internet has deteriorated people’s overall cognitive behavior. He believes that people have smaller attention spans and worsened critical thinking and reading skills. In this essay I will examine the rhetorical strategies Carr uses in his article. I will show how they support his argument, why he chooses the particular strategy and examine the overall effectiveness of support to his main claim of one of his strategies. 

One of the rhetorical strategies that Carr uses to help convince the reader of his argument is the Aristotelian appeals, ethos. Ethos is used to give credibility to the author. Carr states in the beginning of his article, “immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy” and “for more than a decade now, I’ve been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing”(58). This gives Carr credibility because it shows that he has actually experienced what he is writing about. He shows that he is a literary type and has used the internet often in the past decade. These two things are the main components of his claim. It’s hard to believe an author when he or she is talking about something that has never happened to them. He says that he is the literary type because if he just said that he uses the internet and can’t stay focused, there would be nothing to compare it to and his attention deficit could have easily been present before the internet use. By saying that this phenomenon has happened to him, he is far less likely to sound like it is just the "selfie generation" that isn't as advanced as previous generations and possibly offend the younger generations. I think that this strategy could have been much more effective in helping him support his claim. The magazine this article was posted in, The Atlantic, has a demographic of older people in the same generation as Carr.  It is unlikely that someone in their teens or early 20s would be reading this magazine. Also, he gives plenty of other examples of his friends and other people who have had the same effect from the internet, his personal example does not make much of a difference. I think that Carr would've developed a better credibility if he had talked more about his previous research,works, and his experience on the subject of the affect of the internet.

Body Paragraph

Another strategy that Carr uses is a metaphor. He compares the famous movie, “2001: A Space Odyssey” to present day. Carr quotes the movie when the character Dave takes apart HAL, the computer that runs the spaceship and has killed his crew mates. Carr quotes, “ ‘Dave,stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave?’ So the supercomputer HAL pleads with the implacable astronaut Dave Bowman, having nearly been sent to a deep-space death by the malfunctioning machine, is calmly, coldly disconnecting the memory circuits that control its artificial brain. ‘Dave, my mind is going,’ HAL says forlornly. ‘I can feel it. I can feel it.’ I can feel it, too. 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”(Carr p 58). Carr uses the disassembling of the computer’s memory as a metaphor to the disintegration of his and everyone elses’ memories due to technology. Carr chooses words such as “tinkering”, “circuitry”, and “reprogramming”. This word choice suggests that Carr feels like a robot. HAL, contrary to humans, was chained to a wall and could not stop his own disassembly. However, us humans have more control than that, or do we. This metaphor shows that Carr feels as though we are helpless to this change, just as HAL was. We have become addicted to the internet and the technology that we have such easy access to often at the end of our fingertips. 

Rough intro and body paragraphs

Today, we have access to technology at just the tip of our fingers. Instead of going to the library and researching, we are able to type in any question into Google and almost instantly have thousands of results. Some claim that the advancement of technology has actually changed the way people think in a negative way. My instinctive thought is that this technology and access to knowledge would actually improve how we think. Nicholas Carr, a columnist and author who focuses on the affect of technology on our mentality, disagrees. In Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, he claims that the extreme use and reliance of the internet has deteriorated people’s overall cognitive behavior. He believes that people have smaller attention spans and worsened critical thinking and reading skills. In this essay I will examine the rhetorical strategies Carr uses in his article. I will show how they support his argument and why he chooses the particular strategy.

One of the rhetorical strategies that Carr uses to help convince the reader of his argument is the Aristotelian appeals, ethos. Ethos is used to give credibility to the author. Carr states in the beginning of his article, “immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy” and “for more than a decade now, I’ve been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing”(58). This gives Carr credibility because it shows that he has actually experienced what he is writing about. He shows that he is a literary type and has used the internet often in the past decade. These two things are the main components of his claim. It’s hard to believe an author when he or she is talking about something that has never happened to them. He says that he is the literary type because if he just said that he uses the internet and can’t stay focused, there would be nothing to compare it to and his attention deficit could have easily been present before the internet use. Shows that isn't just blaming the generation, so doesn't offend younger generations. His demographic in the magazine this was posted in is more of his generation, literary types(same as Carr).

Is Google Making us Stupid?

Main Claim : The amount of time and reasons we use the internet are causing a decrease in our critical thinking skills.

Types of evidence :

• anecdotes
• facts
• examples
• research

Rhetorical strategies(3) :

• authority - uses authoritative sources for all facts and research
• exemplification - gives examples of people that his main claim applies to
• precedent - refers to historical examples

Rhetorical Strategies, Rifkin and Parry

In Rifkin's, "A Change of Heart about Animals", he discusses the inhumane treatment of "our fellow creatures". Rifkin uses the rhetorical strategy of pathos, giving sad stories about animals in captivity, making us sympathize with those animals and realize that they may deserve better treatment.

In Parry's, "Branding a Condition", he uses the rhetorical strategy of cause and effect to show the readers examples of how branding a disease or condition makes a huge difference in the pharmaceutical market.

Carey Essay Final

Carey Essay

For-profit universities such as University of Phoenix, Grand Canyon University, and DeVry University may be taking over the education system. For-profits are private universities with high tuitions that offer degrees in specific fields. They are run more like businesses than public and private non-profit universities. These colleges have been around for a long time, but recently their benefit to society has become controversial.  Debates are occurring between several educational experts on whether for-profit universities negatively or positively affect American students, tax-payers, and the economy. In 2010, multiple lawsuits were filed against certain for-profits for fraudulent activities. Many believe that these “colleges” are just big businesses scamming students and the U.S. government to increase profits. Others think that they are legitimate universities that provide a convenient way of obtaining a higher education to those often forgotten by the traditional non-profit universities. However, a lot of people, such as Kevin Carey, are on the fence about the subject and see both the good and bad in these universities.  Carey is the director of the Education Policy Program at New America and is widely considered an expert on education issues.  Carey has written many articles published in many magazines and newspapers, including the New York Times and is currently publishing a book about higher education in 2015. Most of his publications focus on higher education in the United States. In his article, “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profits?”, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in 2010, Carey explains his views on the for-profits. He starts out by insisting that these colleges have become money-making machines that prey on less-fortunate people in order to get the tax-payers’ money in the form of government grants. However, Carey later goes on to argue that these schools aren’t all bad because they are a convenient way for the working person to get a higher education and may be no worse than non-profit schools. In this essay, I will dive further into the details of Carey’s claims and discuss other publications that challenge, complicate, and extend his arguments.

Carey starts out his argument with one of his overall claims, which is that the for-profit universities are just in it for the money and will do almost anything to increase their profits. He gives an example of Michael Clifford, the CEO of Grand Canyon University, one of the more egregious for-profits. Clifford, surprisingly, never even attended college and is now running one that enrolls tens of thousands of America’s college students. Many do not consider him as an expert on how to educate students, but he certainly knows how to run a business. Clifford has made millions of dollars, a majority of which comes from government funds, while running this college. Carey explains that “Entrepreneurs like Clifford, meanwhile, have been snapping up dying nonprofit colleges and quickly turning them into money-making machines”(Carey P 3).  For-profits are very profitable investments; they actually have large stocks in the market. Looking at Clifford and his luxurious house located on the beach in Southern California, it’s easy to see why people with business backgrounds are scooping up these opportunities and turning  failing non-profit universities into money making for-profit institutions. It doesn't seem as though these CEO’s are very concerned about providing people a legitimate education, as long as they make money during the process. This brings me to Carey’s next few claims.

Carey claims that recruiter’s aggressively target low-income kids who are eligible for government aid. The federal aid comes in the forms of Pell grants and unsubsidized student loans. He reports, “a quarter of all federal aid goes to for-profits, while they enroll only 10 percent of students”(Carey P 4). This seems to indicate that the college only wants certain people enrolled at their school so they can make more money. This isn't where it stops, though. After a few lawsuits in 2010 against for-profits on the count of fraudulent activity, the government sent undercover investigators to 15 for-profit schools. The GAO report states, “four of the 15 colleges we visited encouraged our undercover applicants to falsify their FAFSA in order to qualify for financial aid”(GAO report) and that at others the advisers gave false information on what you are required to report on the FAFSA application. This extends Carey’s claim by saying that they don’t just target low-income people, but convince people to lie to the government and report that they have less money than in actuality. But how does this get them more money?  If a person is able to go to school without having to pay out of their own pocket, they are much more likely to enroll and stay for longer, which brings the business/school more money. These actions demonstrate that these for-profits truly care more about money than about their students’ education because they convince them commit fraud, which is punishable by the court of law. The for-profits are encouraging students to break the law to increase profits for them. As long as these big businesses get their money, they could not care less about the risks people are taking to get these grants and scholarships. 

Carey’s next claim is that the for-profits don’t offer a legitimate or valuable degree. Most for-profits have regional accreditation just like non-profits. Accreditation is a process used to asses schools for quality and efforts toward improvement. Carey explains that “accreditation has become like a taxicab medallion, available for bidding on the open market”(Carey P 15).  This means that any college can buy it and we have no real standards to hold the for-profits to. Of course, any CEO of a for-profit would ensure you that their education is up to standard and that it’s a great school. However, Sarah Ann Schade complicates Carey’s argument by claiming that the for-profits don't offer up-to-standard courses on purpose, not just because they don't have the tools. Schade gives an example of the for-profit, Arizona Summit Law School, who “proposed curriculum changes that would reduce students’ ability to transfer to better law schools” and made “first-year classes incompatible with other law schools”(Schade 326). This further extends Carey’s main claim that they will do anything for money. This also makes it difficult for students to transfer, therefore they are stuck at the for-profit for a few more years if they hope to get a degree. For-profits aren't just simply incapable of offering standard classes, but the administration purposely offers sub-par classes just to trap students into paying tuition a few more times. This, again, shows that the for-profits do not care about the students well being, just the money.

Carey proceeds to argue that the for-profits need more government regulation. He asserts, “the federal government has every right to regulate the billions of taxpayer dollars it is pouring into the pockets of shareholders. The sooner abusive colleges are prevented from loading students with crushing debt in exchange for for low-value degrees, the better”(Carey P 11). Carey mentions one of the already existent regulations, the “90-10 rule” , which only allows 90 percent of the college’s money to come from aid under the Title IV.  However, the for-profits have found a loophole. The GI Bill, which is government aid for veterans, is not under Title IV.  Therefore, for-profits are able to get 100 percent of their money from government funds. Carey imposes that stricter and more regulations need to be made in order to prevent for-profits to find loopholes and continue their ways. Brian Darling challenges Carey’s proposal for more regulations. He says that the for-profits are under attack by biased bureaucrats “who are trying to make it hard for students to arm themselves with the education needed to find a job”(Darling). Darling suggests that the proposed regulations from the Obama administration unfairly hold for-profits to higher standards than non-profits. Traditional universities are not required to report statistics on graduation rates, loan defaults, or the ability to get jobs after graduation. A non-profit could have equally as bad statistics as a non-profit, but with these regulations, only the non-profit would have to report them and risk getting shut down. He explains that this would simply make the for-profits unable to operate rather than just fix their bad ways. Since for-profits are often the only option for minorities and people with full time jobs, if these regulations were put in legislation, thousands of potential students would not have any options for post-secondary education. 

Even though Carey spends a sufficient amount of time explaining corruption of for-profits, he goes on to claim that they aren’t actually “inherently evil”. In his second overall claim, Carey insists, “the reputable parts of the industry are at the forefront of much technological and organizational innovation”(Carey P 11). What he means is that the for-profits may be corrupt in their business activities to increase profits, but have educational aspects that are beneficial. The way they educate the students could revolutionize how education is done and help the United States get back on track to be one of the most educated countries. According to Carey, the for-profits allow more people to attend school and do, against popular belief, offer valid degrees.  

Carey claims that the for-profits are necessary to give minorities and people who work full-time the opportunity to get an education or training for a better job. He declares that for-profits serve “students that public and private nonprofit institutions too often ignore”(Carey P 11). Most for-profits have many campuses located near freeways, offer night classes, and have an online option for courses. They also usually offer degrees in more specified degrees, such as design or computer graphics, that the non-profits do not. For-profits also have been making deals with bankrupt community colleges and offering courses that they are unable to provide. Schade complicates this by claiming that even though it does let more people get more schooling, a majority of these people are unhappy with their education. She claims, “even if students manage to graduate from for-profit colleges, critics note that their graduates still are less likely to find their degrees to have been worth the expense and are less likely to secure employment compared to their peers at traditional public and private colleges”(Schade 328).  Yes, more people are getting degrees, but Schade argues that they aren't valid or worth it. As I mentioned before, she states that the for-profits classes can’t be transferred to the mainstream universities because they don't meet the standards and have different curriculums.  People with for-profit degrees usually have a difficult time finding employment in their field or make less money than their traditionally educated counterparts. Also, even if the student at a for-profit received the same instruction as someone from a traditional university, a bias still exists. For example, my father is a hiring manager at an engineering company and says that if someone applied for a job with a bachelor’s degree in engineering from ITT Tech, for example, he and his coworkers wouldn't consider him for an engineering job over someone with a degree from a traditional university.  

In conclusion, Carey makes many claims about whether or not for-profits are good or bad, however some of his claims are better than others. Carey gives multiple reasons as to why he believes that for-profits are corrupt and need more regulations. He supports these with statistics, examples, and analysis. However, when he argues the opposite and tries to prove that for-profits aren’t all that bad, his argument seems to weaken. He doesn’t provide much evidence or reasons as to why they are beneficial to have around. Rather, he states that there isn't proof that non-profits are any better. This is not a strong argument, because, in my opinion, although traditional non-profit schools may be just as corrupt as the targeted for-profits, the traditional higher educational university offers a balanced education and more opportunities to obtain future employment.

Carey Rough Draft

For-profit universities such as University of Phoenix, Grand Canyon University, and DeVry University may be taking over the education system. They have been around for a long time but recently it has become a huge controversy on whether or not this negatively or positively affects the students, tax-payers, and economy. In 2010, multiple lawsuits were held against certain for-profits for fraud. Many believe that these “colleges” are just big businesses scamming people to get government money. Others think that they are legitimate universities that provide a convenient education to those often forgotten by “normal” universities. However, a lot of people, such as Kevin Carey, are on the fence and see the good and bad in these for-profits.  Carey is the director of the Education Policy Program at New America and is widely considered an expert on education issues.  Carey has written many articles for the New York Times and many other magazines and is publishing a book in 2015. Most of his publications focus on higher education in the United States. In his article, “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profits?”, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in 2010, Carey explains his views on the for-profits. He starts out by explaining how these colleges have become money-making machines that prey on less-fortunate people in order to get the tax-payers’ money in the form of government grants. Although, Carey later claims that these schools aren’t all bad because of the convenience of them, they just need more government regulations. In this essay, I will extend Carey’s claims that for-profits have issues but are not all bad by using other sources of the same topic.

Carey’s first claim is that the for-profits scam less-fortunate people who are unlikely to pay back their loans in order to get government money. He says, “most of that money comes from the federal government, in the form of Pell Grants and subsidized student loans”(Carey).  Supposedly, the recruiters send the students straight to the financial aid office where they are able to take out large loans with high interest. When these loans aren’t able to be paid back, the borrower, the college is still promised by the US government to get the money they are owed. This money comes right out of the taxpayers pockets. It doesn't matter if the student is able to pay the high price of the school or not, the school gets their money regardless. A government report extends Carey’s argument by showing that in addition to targeting to low-income people, many for-profits even commit fraud in order to get more money from the government. A report written about an undercover investigation of for-profits and discovered that many financial aid officers attempt to convince people to falsify their information on the FAFSA in order to qualify for a bigger Pell grant(“Excerpts from Government Accountability…”). This shows that these businesses are even willing to commit huge crimes in order to get more money rather than only aiming for people with low-incomes.

Carey claims that for-profits should have more government regulation. He says, “The federal government has every right to regulate the billions of taxpayer dollars it is pouring into the pockets of for-profit shareholders”(Carey). However, he doesn't go much further on the subject rather than his vague mention of the 90-10 rule. The 90-10 rule makes it so that the school can only get 90% of its revenue from government aid. However, these corporations have found a loop hole. The other 10% can come recruiting veterans and receiving government  money through the GI Bill. Pertreaus illustrates the possible outcomes of this lack of regulation with the example, “prior to the Military Lending Act of 2007, which capped the annual interest rate for some consumer loans to service members at 36 percent, they were victims of unchecked payday lending and other predatory financial services. I see a parallel in what is happening today with for-profit colleges”(Pertreaus). She is arguing that without more regulation on these companies, veterans will continue to be victims of these predators just searching for any money they can get. She goes on to say that “the benefits provided to our military and their families should not be wasted on programs that do not promote — and may even frustrate — their educational goals”(Pertreaus). She is extending Carey’s claim that the government needs more regulations to stop the exploitation of veterans for more money, by adding that they also need more regulations to make sure they are providing an actual education to those who want it.

Although Carey starts out by arguing the for-profits’ negatives, he goes on to argue that they aren't all bad. Carey claims that “for-profits exist in large part to fix educational market failures left by traditional institutions, and they profit by serving students that public and private nonprofit institutions too often ignore. “(Carey)  With the deteriorating economy, many people are going back to school for a college degree. However, most community colleges are not able to offer classes to all of the people who are trying to get an education. That’s where for-profits come in. With the option of online courses, it is possible to educate many more people than ever before. Also, the non-profit universities are much less convenient to a person who has to work full time and can’t make it to regular hour classes. For-profits usually offer online and night classes. Sieden extends this by showing how the for-profits are even helpful to the instructors. “For example, a student has at times introduced me to a new concept in my field that I have been able to explore and transfer to my own work situation. In many other instances, I have explained a concept to a student and then watched him or her actually put it into practice in the workplace — eventually describing the results to the rest of the class”(Seiden). We often only think about the students when thinking about the effects of for-profits. But there are also teachers who work other jobs or possibly don't have the right connections to become a public university professor. Tenure is not a thing at for-profits, making it possible to always have good instructors that are learning themselves as they teach. A group of working individuals can create an interesting atmosphere where almost everyone is able to apply lessons to real-life situations. 

Carey also claims that traditional colleges may be no better than these corporations, academic wise.Carey says that “traditional institutions have long resisted subjecting themselves to any objective measures of academic quality. They've pointed instead to regional accreditation, which conveniently allows colleges to decide for themselves whether they're doing a good job”(Carey). However, many for-profits also have regional accreditation which means degrees from for-profits may be just as legitimate as the ones from public or private non-profits. Darling extends this by saying that it would be unfair to regulate for-profits and not non-profits. He explains that the government is trying to make for-profits release all of their graduation and debt statistics. Darling explains how the non-profits don't have to release this information, so it would just seem like they are better schools when they might have the same job placement rates.

In conclusion, Carey claims that the for-profits aren't all bad, but could definitely use some reform and regulations. However, Pertreaus government reports, and Seiden, go into further detail with this. In my opinion, these for-profits are necessary to improve the economy because today an education is much needed to get a job. Many people are going back to school and need the convenience and specialty training that these colleges provide. If we can figure out how to make them more affordable, we could have a much larger group of educated and trained people and possibly improve the economy by creating more jobs.

Sources

Source 1: Brian Darling, “For-Profit Education Under Assault”

In this piece, Darling challenges Carey’s idea that the for-profits could use some more government regulation by arguing that the government only wants to unfairly regulate the for-profits and not the regular colleges because they have a prior hatred for them.

Source 2: David Deming, Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence Katz. “For-Profit Colleges” The Future Of Children. Vol. 23 / No. 1 / Spring 2013.

This piece challenges Carey by showing that the 90-10 rule is actually helpful to students and complicates the argument by showing how for-profits are helpful to the economy.

Source 3: Seiden

Seiden qualifies Carey's claim that the for-profits are too aggressive with their recruiting process by agreeing with it, but then going on to say that many people don't believe that they are ready for college and need to be convinced so that they can get an education that everybody deserves.

Extends,Complicates,Qualifies, Challenges or Illustrates

Seiden:

Seiden qualifies Carey's claim that the for-profits are too aggressive with their recruiting process by agreeing with it, but then going on to say that many people don't believe that they are ready for college and need to be convinced so that they can get an education that everybody deserves.

Perteaus:

Perteaus illustrates Carey's claim that the for-profits target veterans by explaining that the 90-10 rule  rule only allows 90% of the college's income to come from government aid under the Title IV. However, the GI Bill isn't under that Title so if they enroll veterans, the remaining 10% can still come  from the government

Conway:

"I can tell you that (personally) my experience with Ashford was very positive. I don’t feel that my Adviser lied to me in any way and everything that we discussed was point on, as far as my needs and expectations for furthering my education. With the exclusion of one course, my Instructors were knowledgeable,instructive, and interactive with the students and my main complaint with that course is that my instructor had a lot of personal emergencies and was unavailable a lot of the time" (Amy Dodson).

This quote challenges Carey's claim that the education is not up to the standards that the schools make it out to be.

Carey's Claims

Claims in the first half of the text(for-profits are the problem):

1. They lie about the amount of government money they are receiving.
            - Micheal CLifford contradicts this by saying that the college has any responsibility for how much students borrow or if they can pay it back.

2. They give people loans that they know they will default on.
            -They charge much more than non-profit public schools and will give a loan to almost anyone.

3. They target low income kids in order to get government money
            - For-profits educate 10% of the nation's college students but get 25% of the federal       aid(Statistics)

Claims in the second half of the text(publics are causing the problems):

1. Public  colleges don't have enough room
              -Community colleges are bankrupt and full so for-profits offer the classes that they don't.

2. Publics also lie about their education statistics.
            -Tom Harkin says that "we don't really know how many students graduate, get jobs, how they
               spend their federal dollar, and how many default over time" for public and non-profit   schools.

3. They aren't as convenient.
            - For-profits offer online and night classes for the many working people going back to school.



I would like to investigate further the way the government tries to regulate the for-profits and how they try and succeed or fail to get around it.

Response to Carey

I think that Carey's overall argument is that the for-profit colleges are flawed in the way that they scam students, but are necessary for the growth of education in the United States. One of his claims is that for-profits purposely aim for low income students so that they can get federal aid. He supports this by stating the statistic that 25% of the federal student aid goes to for-profit colleges even though they only contain 10% of the college student in America. He also claims that the for-profits give out student loans to people who are very likely to default on them. Carey states that these colleges still make money because it is a law that the money from those loans are guaranteed by the government if defaulted. Another one of his claims is that despite their issues, these colleges are actually necessary. His explains this by showing that they offer convenient classes, cater to the students who are often ignored by the traditional universities, and help with the overwhelming amount of people going back to school that the traditional colleges can't fit. I was particularly persuaded that these colleges are actually useful because Carey gave many examples as to why they are. I think he could've given more statistics and examples of how they target kids and how they get so much money from the government.

For-Profit Universities- Reaction

Before watching these videos, I thought that for-profit universities were just like community colleges but for more specialized degrees like fashion or graphic design. I believed that it was a cheap education with flexible hours. Although I was right about the flexible hours, after hearing some stories and facts, I now believe that these colleges are just scams. These schools actually cost more than the average state school in California does. I was shocked to hear that the recruiters target low income kids and even veterans solely to get government aid. Although these colleges only contain about 10% of the nation's students, they bring in about 25% of the government student aid. Before, it seemed like education is more important to these schools than it is to non-profit universities. However, my view changed when I learned that these companies spend about two times more of their profits on marketing than educators. The recruiters are taught to pick at these kids' weak points until they sign up for the university. Once they sign up, the kids are immediately brought to the financial aid office where they take out a student loan with high interest that they can't possibly pay off. I would really like to learn more about how these schools are regulated by the government and hear some statistics on how successful the average person who graduates is.

Final Essay, Analysis of Thompson

Ally Ferrell

Professor Werry

RWS 100

September 26, 2014

Response to Thompson

The internet has only been around for a few decades, yet has become one of the most prominent technologies in society today. Almost everyone you see will have access to the web just sitting in their pocket. Because of its relevance and easy access, the internet has become just as much of a writing tool as a pencil and paper are. The real question here though is, is this tool actually improving writing? The general consensus seems to be that the internet has decreased today’s teens’ writing skills because of the casualty of it. However, many researchers have shown that this generation has better writing skills than ever. One of these researchers is Clive Thompson, who has been fascinated with technology since he was just a kid. Thompson has been a long-time writer for the New York Times Magazine and focuses on writing about digital technologies and their social and cultural impact. He argues in his essay, "Public Thinking", from his book, Smarter Than You Think, that the internet is absolutely responsible for this general increase in cognitive behavior. He claims that the publicness of our writings has improved the way we think. He supports this by bringing up statistics, personal experiences, and examples of other people. In this paper, I will analyze Thompson’s main arguments and how he goes about supporting them. In addition to examining his good arguments, I will also examine his weaker points and where he could have improved his support.

Walking around an average college campus, one sees almost everyone on his or her phone texting, tweeting, or emailing. Clive Thompson insists that all of these small tasks add up to a surprising amount of writing. Thompson’s first supporting claim is that this generation writes more than any other before. Briefly, he insists that “the internet has produced a foaming Niagara of writing”(46). Just like each water drop in the Niagara Falls helps to create one of the biggest and most powerful waterfalls in the world, each word that a person writes is a small part of a larger mass. In order to explain this increase of writing production, he shows research about American literacy done by a scholar named Deborah Brandt. In the past, “Brandt notes, writing was something you did mostly for work, serving an industrial purpose and not personal passions”(50). However, Thompson summarizes Brandt again, now “in our own time, we’re also writing a stunning amount of material about things we’re simply interested in—our hobbies, our friends, weird things we’ve read or seen online, sports, current events, last night’s episode of our favorite TV show”(51). Writing has become less of a task, and more of a social tool and hobby.  It is much easier to write more when you are doing it optionally and enjoy the topic, rather than writing because you need to for a job or school. People write for entertainment now because, compared to the past, others can much more easily read, respond, and start a conversation that is interesting to the author and reader.

Just because people are writing more, does not necessarily mean that they are writing better. Although, according to Thompson, the internet has actually improved this generation’s writing skills due to something called the “audience effect”. Similarly to giving a speech or performing in front of an audience, this effect causes people to think about what they are doing, because they know somebody will be seeing and judging it. When writing and creating an argument, one will tend to make it stronger when he or she knows that somebody will be reading it and can easily tear apart a weak argument. We see examples of this everyday. When writing a post on Facebook or posting on a public blog, almost anyone can comment on it and critique it. Thompson says that this causes people to think more carefully about what they’re writing and create a stronger and more planned out argument. Thompson gives an example of of what bloggers frequently tell him. They tell him that they start to write on their blogs, “but pretty soon they think about the fact that someone’s going to read this as soon as it’s posted. And suddenly all the weak points in their argument, their cliches and lazy, autofill thinking, become painfully obvious”(52). When posting something on the internet, one realizes that almost anybody can see it. A future employer, a family member, or friend can easily search for or stumble upon the post. This will probably cause the author to think about how professional and appropriate their writing is and in a broader sense, cause them to think about how their actions can affect their future and relationships. For example, Gabriel Weinberg, a founder for a search engine meant for protecting user privacy, says that “Even if I was publishing it[his blog] to no one, it’s just the threat of an audience. If someone could come across it under my name, I have to take it more seriously”(54).  Although this is an argument that doesn’t need much convincing, Thompson backs it up more with research from sources such as Vanderbilt University professors and Sir Francis Bacon rather than only some unnamed bloggers. 

A popular counter-argument is that today’s technology has lowered teens’ grammar and spelling due to informal texting and IM language. However, Thompson explains why it actually has the opposite effect. He uses research done by a Stanford University English professor, Andrea Lunsford.Her research supports that using IM acronyms such as “LOL” have made almost no negative impacts on today’s writings(66). Thompson explains how others’ research shows that “one analyzed 1.5 million words from instant messages by teens and found that there, only 3 percent of the words used were IM-style short forms”(66). He suggests that the amount of writing done via instant messaging has a much more powerful impact than the type of writing done. In fact, using these acronyms and other casual talk in social situations is actually helpful.   We have learned to change tone and sophistication based on who we are writing to or the context of the work, which is a very valuable life skill. Thompson uses a mixture of reliable resources and relatable subjects to help support his argument. Hearing statistics about texting is much easier to connect to than statistics about writing books. 

The theory of multiples is another idea that Thompson brings up. He explains how the internet has created a revolutionary network of ideas. In the past, multiple people would discover the same thing without knowing another already had. Thompson uses historical examples of scientists rediscovering the same thing because they were not in contact(60-61).With the internet, people can share ideas and bounce ideas off of each other. Reading articles or a blog that are interesting to you can help to spark new ideas. When you comment on these articles or posts, you may start a chain of new ideas that spreads throughout the world. If interested in a subject, one can easily just google it and most likely find a website for that subject. When he or she does so, they now have access to information that others had previously posted. With this, the person does not have to rediscover said information and can then spend his or her time on expanding the idea and possibly discovering something further on their own. It becomes a chain effect of expanding research and knowledge on almost any subject that you can think of. 

In conclusion, Thompson makes a good argument about how the internet is helpful to improve this generation’s cognitive behavior. However, he fails to acknowledge many factors  that might show how the internet is harmful to thinking. Some questions that popped into my head as I read Thompson’s essay remain unanswered. Although we do have such easy access to the internet today, the smartphones that many people are using to do so limit the full potential to do something great. On a smartphone, one may write frequently, however, it is usually just a casual text or email. Is the easy access to google making people more reliant on technology than memorized knowledge? Does using easy access to others’ works on the internet cause unoriginality? Although Thompson does a good job of analyzing the general use of internet, he does not go into enough detail of the way it is being accessed. 

Works Cited

Thompson, Clive. “Public Thinking”. Smarter Than You Think. Penguin Press. Sept. 12, 2013.