Socio-Technical Perspective

Are you at an age where you can remember a time before the internet, where you would have to search through stacks of books or encyclopedias to find the information that you want? Some of you may be thinking “Yes, thank god for google!” and others may be thinking “Oh, the horror! I can’t imagine surviving without it!”. But there are the few that reminisce about the time when you couldn’t find whatever information you were looking for in a matter of minutes. Unlike many, Tim Kreider looks back on the times before the internet with fondness, and thinks that our easy access to information has had some negative side effects. While Kreider raises some interesting and valid points in his article, “In Praise of Not Knowing” there are still some

In the article, “Is Google Making us Stupid?”, one could see that there is an issue at hand. With the growth of technology since the early 2000s, the use of the internet has been our, as a culture, source for information. There is so much information that people could not possibly be able to sift through it all. This metaphorical mound of information has occupied our minds as humans, jumping point to point. With the accumulation of data that is at our fingertips, people are being challenged to think, reason, and to read. How then, can we achieve this with all the information but without the ability?

As time progresses in our technologically propelled era and the internet continues to provide as the largest network source of information, our intellectual perception of information takes on a more distinctive and less analytical approach than before. The use of the internet has seized control over the vast connection of neural pathways in our minds, influencing our experiences and essentially hindering our natural ability to apply cognitive thinking.

The internet has revolutionized the world. The internet users can easily access from any data from around the world. However, the internet was also made the users less critical thinkers since the data obtain can be easily found online instead of reading it from a print book. Two sources in particular, Nicholas Carr, “Shallows” and Michael’s Aggers, interview with Clive Thompson “Smarter than you think” have recently argued how the internet has changed our memory and ways of thinking. The internet is bad for your brain because it limits your knowledge of memorization and XXXXXXX .In the book Shallows by Carr, he states. “The arrival of the limitless and easily searchable data banks of the Internet brought a further shift, not just in the way

I feel as though Nicholar Carr succeeded in demonstrating the importance of how the Internet changes our brain’s ability to absorb information. The opposing views of his claim would be that there is not a change in our thinking or that the Internet is not what is responsible for that change. My position is most closely aligned with Carr’s. I believe that the Internet’s convenience has altered the expectations we have for how easily information should be presented. We prefer information to be short, to-the-point, tidbits that are easy to

When we need to look for a definition of a word, where do we go? Google. When we want to search for more details about a breaking news that just came out on television, where do we go? Google. Whether it is for school or work, the main source that people rely on to get enough information is Google. Nicholas Carr, the writer of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” claims that the internet has been detrimental for human beings by the way they process information into their brains, their own way of thinking, and creating negative effects upon concentration. Carr uses plenty of different methods to prove his point such as, playing the audience’s emotions while using anecdotes, sharing his observations from his own perspective and using research. He believes that everyone should be skeptical of the internet because of the way it might be shaping the way we think. A comparison between the past and the present are is told to let the readers know how it changed not only him, but others as well.

Being able to instantly gather information is easier than it has ever been before. People can go on the internet, press a few buttons and are given an endless amount of information. Do not anything about the topic, just Google it and it will provide the information that is needed. It has come to the point where people rely on the internet daily. However, there are downsides to having technology surrounding society most of the time. In the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid? ” from the July/August 2008 edition of The Atlantic, Nicholas Carr, a writer and former member of Britannica’s Encyclopedia editorial board of advisors, expresses how technology is negatively changing how we think and act because of the influences people get from the technology

Growing up, my life was somewhat sheltered compared to the lives of other people my age. I was raised by both my mom and dad in a Christian household, in which I was taught morals based upon our faith. As a result of this upbringing, my parents and I made the decision to enroll me in a private Christian school in sixth grade. In this setting I was protected from the influences of the outside world. All of the language, violence, and temptations were around me, which I began to recognize as I entered my freshman year of high school. Even the walls of the highly respected establishment could not keep the real world out.

This essay is informative because it shows how habits, and the mind, are changing because of the internet. People have become dependent on instant information; impatient when needing to research a topic; no longer need to remember information since it can be recalled on the computer; reliant on the

In “Reading Less and More When Evaluating Digital Information”, Sam Wineburg and Sarah McGrew evaluate the credibility of digital information using an experiment. In this experiment, they test historians, students, and fact checkers. The participants are given “a set of six online tasks that took approximately 45 minutes to complete.” (6) They are allowed to use any additional resources or sites to justify if the site is reliable or not.

The information that the internet provides is convenient, too convenient in fact. When in the past one would have to memorize the periodic table or the amendments to the United States Constitution, these facts can be easily found online. Socrates proposed that “by substituting outer symbols for inner memories”, humans are prevented “from achieving the intellectual depth that leads to wisdom and true happiness”. Essentially, when a fact is continually referenced from a script, as opposed to recalled from memory, the synapses that relate memory begin to disappear. Similarly, with the advances of technology in the current age, it has become so easy for humans to quickly search for an answer. Attention is not given as to how the answer was derived, it is simply used. The concise nature of the internet propagates this problem. When an internet search is performed, more often than not, an informational box will appear with a summary of the search query. This exemplifies the fact that readers no longer have to search for a main idea. Similarly, some famous periodicals such as the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times have shifted to a format which emphasizes summaries. The New York Times decided to include a three-page section of each “edition to paragraph-long article abstracts and other brief items” (Carr, 95). The purpose of this is to allow

In Carrs article he discusses the way that the Internet gives us a false sense of knowledge. When we want to know about something we Google it. We find the article title that is closest to what we are searching for and we click it. In our everlasting quest to be know-it-alls we skim and skim or look for bold words and sentences until we feel that the information we have now obtained is suffice and we are considered knowledgeable about the topic. Although we feel this way, this “knowledge” is usually based off of two or three sentences that are compact and straight to the point.

An employer is an individual or organization who employs one or more person (employee) for wages or salary, while an employee works for an individual or organization (employer) for wage or salary. The wage that is earn is used to cover expenses by the employee, in the form of bills, to cover health, housing, food, utilities, all seen as a necessity.

Sociocultural perspective is mainly about how different people are from one another. This theory is used to determine what might trigger or influence someone's behavior or mental stage, such as their surroundings, gender, culture, or even ethnicity. A person's surroundings is a major part of their behavior or actions because this could help a psychologist understand why they think something is normal, or where they picked up some of the habits they may have. For example, someone from a more individual or smaller society will have a more independent of others as well as themselves. Society is also put into the socio-cultural perspective because children tend to lean towards what everyone else does so they could feel pressured to do things just to fit into a group.

“Societies have always been shaped by media for communication, it is impossible to understand social and cultural change without knowledge of the workings of media even the alphabet is a technology that is absorbed by young children to learn to speak through communication. The digital age is changing the way we use our brains. Rather than store important facts, today we are more likely to store information about how to find those facts where a particular file is located on the computer, how to find an important webpage again.