iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind
I have recently come across a book written by Gary Small called "iBrain:
Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind".
The book is about the technologies that have become part of our daily
lives are changing the way we think. According to a local newspaper the
book tells us that ggogle and youtube actually makes us dumber.
Key concepts of the book:
*The brain’s plasticity—its ability to change in response to stimuli from
the environment—is well known. What has been less appreciated is how the
expanding use of technology is shaping neural processing.
*Young people are exposed to digital stimulation for several hours every
day, and many older adults are not far behind.
*Even using a computer for Web searches for just an hour a day changes the
way the brain processes information. A constant barrage of e-contacts is
both stimulating—sharpening certain cognitive skills—and draining, studies
show.
I have NOT yet bought the book but WILL do very soon. After reading its
reviews, I highly recommend it.
--
"A man can be valued through his sayings".
Imam Ali(as)
Get the feed
Comments
I would recommend Andy Clark's book Natural Born Cyborgs, where he
discusses the idea that "technology" has always been so tightly
integrated as part of all levels of thinking, cognition, etc, and it's
just that with digital, or "high tech" technology it becomes more
visible. Natural Born Cyborgs is the popular science version of his
work, so for those further interested, I would recommend his more
academic treatments of it, e.g. his new book, Supersizing the Mind.
Natural Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence
http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Born-Cyborgs-Technologies-Future-Intelligence/dp/0195177517/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228404504&sr=8-3
Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension
http://www.amazon.com/Supersizing-Mind-Embodiment-Cognitive-Philosophy/dp/0195333217/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228404541&sr=8-1
Joel
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:01 AM, <ali at amroha.dk> wrote:
> I have recently come across a book written by Gary Small called "iBrain:
> Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind".
> The book is about the technologies that have become part of our daily
> lives are changing the way we think. According to a local newspaper the
> book tells us that ggogle and youtube actually makes us dumber.
>
> Key concepts of the book:
> *The brain's plasticity—its ability to change in response to stimuli from
> the environment—is well known. What has been less appreciated is how the
> expanding use of technology is shaping neural processing.
>
> *Young people are exposed to digital stimulation for several hours every
> day, and many older adults are not far behind.
>
> *Even using a computer for Web searches for just an hour a day changes the
> way the brain processes information. A constant barrage of e-contacts is
> both stimulating—sharpening certain cognitive skills—and draining, studies
> show.
>
> I have NOT yet bought the book but WILL do very soon. After reading its
> reviews, I highly recommend it.
> --
Another book that is sitting on my shelf waiting to get read is "Rapture for
the Geeks" which explores some of these ideas.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Joel Eden <joel.eden at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would recommend Andy Clark's book Natural Born Cyborgs, where he
> discusses the idea that "technology" has always been so tightly
> integrated as part of all levels of thinking, cognition, etc, and it's
> just that with digital, or "high tech" technology it becomes more
> visible. Natural Born Cyborgs is the popular science version of his
> work, so for those further interested, I would recommend his more
> academic treatments of it, e.g. his new book, Supersizing the Mind.
>
> Natural Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human
> Intelligence
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Born-Cyborgs-Technologies-Future-Intelligence/dp/0195177517/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228404504&sr=8-3
>
> Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Supersizing-Mind-Embodiment-Cognitive-Philosophy/dp/0195333217/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228404541&sr=8-1
>
> Joel
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:01 AM, <ali at amroha.dk> wrote:
> > I have recently come across a book written by Gary Small called "iBrain:
> > Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind".
> > The book is about the technologies that have become part of our daily
> > lives are changing the way we think. According to a local newspaper the
> > book tells us that ggogle and youtube actually makes us dumber.
> >
> > Key concepts of the book:
> > *The brain's plasticity—its ability to change in response to stimuli from
> > the environment—is well known. What has been less appreciated is how the
> > expanding use of technology is shaping neural processing.
> >
> > *Young people are exposed to digital stimulation for several hours every
> > day, and many older adults are not far behind.
> >
> > *Even using a computer for Web searches for just an hour a day changes
> the
> > way the brain processes information. A constant barrage of e-contacts is
> > both stimulating—sharpening certain cognitive skills—and draining,
> studies
> > show.
> >
> > I have NOT yet bought the book but WILL do very soon. After reading its
> > reviews, I highly recommend it.
> > --
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>
--
~ will
"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel: +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com
aim: semanticwill
gtalk: semanticwill
twitter: semanticwill
skype: semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ali,
The Atlantic magazine published an article about this same subject in
their July/August issue called "Is Google Making us Stupid."
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
I went back to look over the article and it doesn't mention Small's
book, but does present an interesting and well balanced article.
The most interesting part was at the end, where the author, Nicholas
Carr talked about how this is not first instance in history where a
new form of technology has provoked fears about it's impact on our
intellectual abilities as well as our culture.
For example, Socrates, bemoaned the act of writing (the new
technology of his day) thinking that it would cause people to
%u201Ccease to exercise their memory and become forgetful%u201D.
Next, Gutenberg's printing press spurred similar fears. According
to the article, Italian humanist Hieronimo Squarciafico worried that
the easy availability of books would "lead to intellectual laziness,
making men less studious and weakening their minds."
In both cases, some fears were warranted and indeed proved prescient,
but neither anticipated (or so it seems) the benefits spreading
information, spurring fresh ideas, and expanding human knowledge that
writing and printing would have on our culture. So, yes, our modern
memories fail to have the motivation or capacity for memorizing Ovid,
but we also have unprecedented access to information.
But is this making us flat (wide) and thin thinkers, rather than deep
thinkers? Do our needs change our thinking? Or does our thinking
change our needs as a culture? In any case, it's a very interesting
topic.
That said, I hope some of the UX Bookclubs will now and then choose
books that pose larger cultural/philosophical questions like this
one.
Thanks for bringing it up. Let us know what you think when you've
read it.
Cheers,
Cindy
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36180
"But is this making us flat (wide) and thin thinkers, rather than
deep thinkers? Do our needs change our thinking? Or does our thinking
change our needs as a culture? In any case, it's a very interesting
topic."
I don't think it's as simple as thinking wide/thin or deep. I
think it's a matter of filtering useful information and applying it
more instantly. It also helps to communicate more effectively than
providing long essays which may require access to a thesaurus or
dictionary. In web content, you want audience attention, which could
mean lowering the written word grade level.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36180
"I don't think it's as simple as thinking wide/thin or deep. I
think it's a matter of filtering useful information and applying it
more instantly. It also helps to communicate more effectively than
providing long essays which may require access to a thesaurus or
dictionary. In web content, you want audience attention, which could
mean lowering the written word grade level."
Ben,
I appreciate what you say, but my comment was not related to the
effectiveness of web content or what gets audience attention. The big
question has to do with the degree to which our brains (and, hence, our
thinking) is being altered by the way we interact with information online,
and one aspect of that does indeed have to do with the nature of content
(among other things). I do believe that our general ability to sit for long
periods, focused on a single subject is being diminished somehow. This is
not an argument for or against anything, just an observation. In fact,
friends of mine have admitted that they read more blog posts than books.
Also, to say that an essay that requires access to a thesaurus or dictionary
is a less effective way to communicate truly scares me. In fact, one could
say that your opinion reflects the kind of thing these authors are talking
about. Yes, there are enormous benefits to filtering and consuming
information instantly; but I think there's another problem in the idea that
people would need a thesaurus or dictionary to understand an essay in the
first place. But that's another issue entirely. :-) The overall issue is
not about our ability to understand or the relative effectiveness of content
but our deeply programmed modes of thought.
Check out the article in the Atlantic and you'll get a better sense of the
issue. I think you'll find it pretty interesting.
Cheers,
Cindy
Cindy,
"I do believe that our general ability to sit for long periods,
focused on a single subject is being diminished somehow."
I wouldn't find that to be true. I think if there's a person
willing to sit for long periods of time on a subject, it's usually
because they obsess about something or they're doing research for a
project. The smart ones will not only go to the Internet for the
information but also to the school library.
To blame a human's inadequacies on a certain technology I think is
more short-sighted than anything else. We are the ones who can best
adapt - let's do so.
"Also, to say that an essay that requires access to a thesaurus or
dictionary is a less effective way to communicate truly scares me. In
fact, one could say that your opinion reflects the kind of thing these
authors are talking about."
Just because writing is placed in a lower grade level of writing,
doesn't mean there is less deep thinking. I can recall many times
especially reading Bucky Fuller's Critical Path book that my brain
has "checked out" because of a long-winded,
exponentially-compounded idea. And it's not to say I'd be labeled
dumb either. It's to say that there are different ways of
communicating and certain methods come across quicker than others and
this is all dependent on the person. The Internet is designed that
way to make it more relatable and effectively repurposing content.
Taking a look at the title: "Surviving the Technological Alteration
of the Modern Mind" sounds really interesting - does it come in
online format? =]
BTW, there has already been a discussion about the Atlantic article
and I've checked on it - thanks.
Ben
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36180
I'm less convinced about the idea of technology making us "smarter"
or "dumber" in any empirical sense. I think what changes is how we
think about what qualities make up being "smart" or "dumb".
I wrote a response to the Carr article here:
http://www.polaine.com/playpen/2008/06/17/google-isnt-making-us-dumb-but-smart-is-changing/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36180
Hi Ben,
I think were verging into semantic territory here, but let me comment on a
few things anyway. :)
"To blame a human's inadequacies on a certain technology I think is
more short-sighted than anything else. We are the ones who can best
adapt - let's do so."
First, no one's blaming technology---to use the word blame is to frame the
argument negatively And I don't think I said anything about inadequacies.
In fact, I specifically stated that the issue is not about ability. What's
interesting, rather, is how our brain, physiologically might change as a
result of the way we use technology---just the way it might have done after
the printing press. Or did it? Who knows? It must in some way. We will
always adapt, to be sure; but we'll lose things in the process as well.
That's inevitable. And the world will adapt along with our adaptations. :-)
"Just because writing is placed in a lower grade level of writing,
doesn't mean there is less deep thinking. I can recall many times
especially reading Bucky Fuller's Critical Path book that my brain
has "checked out" because of a long-winded,
exponentially-compounded idea. And it's not to say I'd be labeled
dumb either. It's to say that there are different ways of
communicating and certain methods come across quicker than others and
this is all dependent on the person. "
Fair enough. I don't disagree. But quicker is not always deeper either.
But true, it is dependent on the person, but also on, as you would say, the
"effectiveness" of the content no matter what the form or length.
I also think we need to separate the delivery and consumption of content
that effectively conveys meaning from the engagement in deep thinking in
order to create meaning. What I should have said earlier instead of "sitting
for long periods focused on a single subject" is engaging in a focused
period of reflective thought. I don't mean obsessing on a project or
researching at the library on a subject; but pure thinking, the kind that
requires time. Novels and books encourage us to do that. Blog post don't
so much. And I love what both of them give to us. I don't think people
are going to stop thinking or reading novels anytime soon, I would just hate
for us, as a culture, as humans with brains, to lose sight of the importance
of or the ability for deep reflection as a result of our habits of
information consumption made possible through the technology we love. Maybe
it's not an issue. The fact that someone has written a book on it makes me
suspect that there's at least something in it worth considering.
I must have been sleeping during the original discussion on the Google
article. Or reading a book. :-) I'll check it out.
Okay, I think I've said enough for one day. Thanks for provoking the
conversation.
Cheers,
Cindy
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Benjamin Ho <benoh2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cindy,
>
> "I do believe that our general ability to sit for long periods,
> focused on a single subject is being diminished somehow."
>
> I wouldn't find that to be true. I think if there's a person
> willing to sit for long periods of time on a subject, it's usually
> because they obsess about something or they're doing research for a
> project. The smart ones will not only go to the Internet for the
> information but also to the school library.
>
> To blame a human's inadequacies on a certain technology I think is
> more short-sighted than anything else. We are the ones who can best
> adapt - let's do so.
>
> "Also, to say that an essay that requires access to a thesaurus or
> dictionary is a less effective way to communicate truly scares me. In
> fact, one could say that your opinion reflects the kind of thing these
> authors are talking about."
>
> Just because writing is placed in a lower grade level of writing,
> doesn't mean there is less deep thinking. I can recall many times
> especially reading Bucky Fuller's Critical Path book that my brain
> has "checked out" because of a long-winded,
> exponentially-compounded idea. And it's not to say I'd be labeled
> dumb either. It's to say that there are different ways of
> communicating and certain methods come across quicker than others and
> this is all dependent on the person. The Internet is designed that
> way to make it more relatable and effectively repurposing content.
>
> Taking a look at the title: "Surviving the Technological Alteration
> of the Modern Mind" sounds really interesting - does it come in
> online format? =]
>
> BTW, there has already been a discussion about the Atlantic article
> and I've checked on it - thanks.
>
> Ben
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36180
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>
--
Cindy Chastain
917-848-7995
Ahh...before someone jumps on the last comment, let me just say that there
have been more than a few blog posts that have caused me to sit down and
think for a long time. From many of you on this list in fact. I'm not
saying they don't. It just flew out as an example, but the argument is not
about what information or content or format is better than the another, or
what's smart or dumb, but about how our brain functions in and is
potentially shaped by different information contexts and consumption modes.
At least that's what interests me.
Cheers,
Cindy
Clearly it affects us on a neurological level. For the young, it may
be comparable to the way language affects us developmentally.
Language, and the possibility for abstract thought it grants us, is
something that is developed early in life. Beyond a certain age,
people are unable to develop the neurological capacity for language
beyond a very limited vocabulary and simply grammar. (This may happen
with emotional development as well.)
But if you get linguistic interaction, it's extremely easy for
people to pick up language, and how they pick it up affects how their
mind uses it. For example, children who learn language through sign
instead of auditory input use a larger portion of their brain when
talking, accessing spatial & proprioceptive areas non-signers don't
use. This occurs irrespective of whether they're using sign or
speech to communicate. (If you're interested, Oliver Sacks' book
Seeing Voices is a good starting point for understanding signing,
deafness, & neurological development).
In the same way, I think children who are learning and interacting
digitally, using controllers, mice, and keyboards, may also be
developing their minds differently from children learning with books
and writing. I don't think a judgment like "better" or "worse"
could be made on this, but certainly it would be a qualitative
difference.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36180
Clearly it affects us on a neurological level. For the young, it may
be comparable to the way language affects us developmentally.
Language, and the possibility for abstract thought it grants us, is
something that is developed early in life. Beyond a certain age,
people are unable to develop the neurological capacity for language
beyond a very limited vocabulary and simply grammar. (This may happen
with emotional development as well.)
But if you get linguistic interaction, it's extremely easy for
people to pick up language, and how they pick it up affects how their
mind uses it. For example, children who learn language through sign
instead of auditory input use a larger portion of their brain when
talking, accessing spatial & proprioceptive areas non-signers don't
use. This occurs irrespective of whether they're using sign or
speech to communicate. (If you're interested, Oliver Sacks' book
Seeing Voices is a good starting point for understanding signing,
deafness, & neurological development).
In the same way, I think children who are learning and interacting
digitally, using controllers, mice, and keyboards, may also be
developing their minds differently from children learning with books
and writing. I don't think a judgment like "better" or "worse"
could be made on this, but certainly it would be a qualitative
difference.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36180
Hi Alex,
Thanks so much for providing the words of someone who actually seems
to know something about this topic. As a mother of a four-year-old
and someone who's been working on a website for the pre-school set,
I've been reading a certain amount about how children's minds are
formed. It's certainly inflected my thinking about how we, as
adults, are impacted by technology. I'm a great fan of Oliver
Sack's but have not read the book you mention. Will definitely check
it out.
Cheers,
Cindy
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36180
"In the same way, I think children who are learning and interacting
digitally, using controllers, mice, and keyboards, may also be
developing their minds differently from children learning with books
and writing."
This is really interesting. Are there any studies that have
concluded on this type of statement? I'd like to know because my
son of 11.5 months is wanting to type on my laptop. :-S
(I also want to thank the OP, Cindy and anyone else who've commented
because this subject really gave me an opportunity for deep thought on
such an interesting topic.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=36180