The wave of technology and internet rides alongside the logical and controversial debate of how technology will affect humanity individually and collectively. The questions in the conversation emerge as we advance towards a high-tech unknown world where these are natural and genuinely concerning: What is the impact and effect of technology in our cognition? How do the sources of thought that come from technology and the web shape our thinking? Are we facing a mechanization of the human intelligence? How do new intellectual technologies change the metaphors we use to “explain ourselves”?.

In our technology adaptation process, one way in which most of us notice how technology impacts us occurs when we sense that our ability to read deeply diminishes, we “get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do”, and like Scott Karp, a media blogger points out “seek convenience”. He speculates: “What happened? What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because the way I read has changed. i.e. I’m just seeking convenience, but because the way I think has changed?. It seems that “the deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle”, “I’m not thinking the way I used to think”, worries Nicholas Carr, a technology and culture writer. 

To understand the reasons of this impact, we have on one hand Carr, whose biggest concern is that as we become more adapted to technology and internet, these can turn to be the arbitrators of our understanding of the world and the way we relate to it. We know that throughout history, technology has shaped our mind while we are adapting to it. Some neuroscientists even argue that “thanks to our brain plasticity, the adaptation occurs also at the biological level”. Since the human brain is indeed very malleable, and the internet gathers the power of all prior technological inventions like maps, pens, printed books, typewriters, calculators, telephones, Carr ponders how it is really “reprogramming” us. On the other hand Clive Thompson, a science journalist, envisions our relationship with technology as a “symbiotic” one that shapes and enhances our minds into higher cognitive levels. In his view, a collaborative relationship with technology produces an enriching world of “public thinking” and “superfluity of information” in the style of a fantastic “technological renaissance”. Thompson’s argument is partly based on the extended mind theory of cognition, whereby humans are intellectually superior because “we outsource bits of our cognition, using tools to scaffold our thinking into more rarefied realms”. He admits that new technologies shape new forms of behavior and move us away from older ones creating what the Canadian professor Harold Innis described as “bias of a new tool”. From Thompson’s perspective “living with new technologies means understanding how they bias everyday life”. Thompson and Carr arrive to a commonplace of understanding on where the issue is; not from the viewpoint of its consequences but for part of its causes: whether to use it or not and how much.

I will step into the conversation between Clive and Carr as I can agree with both that technological advancements have taught us that “every new tool shapes the way we think, as well as what we think about”. I agree that the human brain is infinitely malleable, and as such, it will adapt to new intellectual technologies as we gain new skills and open new pathways in our brain that will lead to higher levels of intellectual understanding. But I strongly object with those, like the founder of Google, that we “will be better off” connected to an artificial brain with all the world’s information attached to it. I see that trend of thought in other authors as well (like Yuval Noah Harari’s “Sapiens”), and I would reply that the idea is a simplistic interpretation of how the human mind works, understanding it as a mechanical process. From the social perspective of the analysis I concede that there is indeed an “advent of public thinking: the ability to broadcast our ideas and the catalytic effect that has both inside and outside our minds”. This is something fantastic to see, however in this respect Clive shows some naivety as the great mind enhancers of internet public thinking (e.g. the liberal arts) do not percolate into all individuals of society in the same way. I maintain that as social animals we need to posses emotional awareness to be present in our habitat, creating humane relationships around us and exerting our civic duties as educated and responsible active citizens. As it becomes more problematic we need to be able to distinguish what is real and truthful from what is fake, unreal or fantastic, and discern what is good for our wellbeing as individuals and in society. Following Carr’s quote “internet intellectual ethics remain obscure”, losing discernment of what is fake or real, is something of great concern about our future relationship with technology. The issue is important because “one of the great challenges of today’s digital thinking tools is of knowing when not to use them, and when to rely on the powers of older and slower technologies,” like a compass and map to navigate life. Definitively, technology demands a high level of “mindfulness” – “paying attention to your own attention”. I end agreeing with both Thompson and Carr posing the question: are we relying on computers to mediate our understanding of the world to the point where is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence?” As a result “Are we losing some of our humanity?”.

Nicholas Carr: “Is Google Making us Stupid?”

Clive Thompson: “Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is changing Our Minds for the Better.”