by Katie Constantine

Nicholas Carr’s essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” is a shocking eye opener for frequent internet users. Carr explores his own problem of no longer being able to focus on lengthy texts and blames the internet’s instant gratification. Carr wonders if the internet/Google is causing individuals to become less intelligent, if the current generation is unable to think critically, and if the concept of artificial intelligence is positive or negative. With more people than ever immersing themselves in the internet, the mind’s ability to concentrate and comprehend text is beginning to decrease. Carr states his dilemma by saying “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words,” explaining that he used to love to read long books with rich text. “Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a jet ski,” implying that he can no longer focus for a long period of time, hence the immediate gratification of the internet (Carr 65). Carr’s essay emphasizes that the internet is causing the current generation to search for immediacy and to skim texts, which he expresses as a negative and increasingly common event.

Carr strategically begins his essay “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” by introducing a quote from the popular movie A Space Odyssey: 2001. He uses a dramatization as the opening of his argument that relates to the current generation and how we’re losing our minds, similar to the supercomputer HAL in a pivotal scene in the movie. This opening creates a catchy introduction that grabs the readers’ attention. The essay title “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” immediately sparks the interest of readers, causing them to question their own experiences with the internet and consider how it has changed the way they think. Carr reaches out to the audience of his peers who did not primarily grow up with the internet, yet now use it on a daily basis. The author explains that the internet has been a “godsend” to him as a writer, which indicates that he has not always grown up with the Web at the touch of a fingertip (Carr 64). Because of this, he is writing to an audience who has had similar experiences reading books before the internet, as well as after the internet. Carr succeeds in relating to his peers who have essentially learned the internet as a second language. Carr especially connects with this generation during the beginning of his essay where he talks about his own personal experience with reading in an internet-savvy society since they can relate to his appeals.

Carr brings pathos into the essay during his tear-jerking personal anecdotes. The anecdotes cause the reader to sympathize with Carr’s decreased ability to absorb text. He displays this by saying “My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing . . .The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle” (Carr 64). These quotes force the reader to realize that Carr’s issue with reading is very dramatic and upsetting to him. Because of his personal anecdotes, the essay becomes relateable and sensitive to his readers who have experienced the same dilemma. Carr establishes his emotional appeal with personal anecdotes, yet does not come up short with research to back up his claims.

Using experts in the field of technology increase the credibility of the personal claims made by Carr. A psychologist at a well-known university, Maryanne Wolf, had gathered research that was particularly well-documented in the essay. Her research indicates that media and other technologies do indeed play a major role in aligning the neural pathways in humans’ brains. This and other expert findings about the human brain being very malleable and able to adapt to new technologies provide logos to Carr’s essay. Carr also includes expert testimonies from Google’s creators which counter his concern for humanity. Google’s creators exclaim “the ultimate search engine is something as smart as people—or smarter” (Carr 72). This quote supports the author’s main concern for humanity losing its sense of intelligence. The inclusion of Google’s creators provides a credible source with opposing viewpoints. Having different viewpoints in the essay prevents it from sounding close-minded without any other opinions but his own. The opposing viewpoints balance out Carr’s essay and give it a credible touch. Well-rounded evidence is used throughout the essay to make Carr’s essay two-sided.

Carr takes an interesting turn when he begins to mention other technologies, such as the mechanical clock, the typewriter, and the telephone towards the middle of the essay. He slips from his main focus when he mentions the technologies of different eras which were first thought to negatively influence society, yet ended up improving it greatly. Since Carr is originally trying to argue that the internet is tinkering with our minds in a negative way, these examples of positive technologies undermine his attempt at persuasion. In addition, Carr’s essay becomes more open minded as he encourages his readers to be “skeptical of [his] skepticism”(Carr 74). By stating this, he wants the readers to decide for themselves if the internet is changing their minds in a negative way, or not. By doing this, Carr loses the strength of his own side. The ending of the essay is very contradictory of his avid attempt to persuade the reader in the beginning, yet adds a successful twist.

Despite the contradicting motive of Carr’s essay, he establishes successful organization throughout the piece. Carr’s paragraphs are well supported with evidence and are professionally written, which keep the reader well engaged. Carr moves logically to different points in the essay and keeps his paragraphs clear and easily decodable. The transitions between paragraphs are flawless, particularly when he transitions from talking about his own personal testimonies in the beginning to speaking about experts’ research. He begins this transition by saying “Anecdotes alone don’t prove much”(Carr 65). By saying this, he clearly and simply states that as a writer, he feels obligated to provide research that backs up his words. Because Carr understands that his anecdotes cannot stand alone, he forces the reader to trust him in establishing credible research. The smooth transitions as well as the professional organization contribute the overall cohesiveness of the piece.

Carr’s language is engaging and thought provoking throughout the essay. He uses a humorous tone during the introduction and conclusion paragraphs which really brings his essay full circle. During the introduction, the author comically relates his own brain to a movie scene with an artificial brain losing its ability to think. At the end of the essay, Carr brings the analogy back in to the piece and jokes that human brains are becoming flattened like “pancakes” because of artificial intelligence (Carr 75). The middle of the essay includes highly technical and factual evidence. Since the author cites several different experts in the middle of his essay, he does so in a professional manner by using less vivid descriptions, and more research based facts. The author matches his language to his peers by acting much like a computer himself in his writing. Carr does not dwell on one subject for a long time; instead he skips from point to point in order to interest his readers, similar to how someone would skip around when reading online. What this illustrates is Carr’s ability to relate his language to his audience and to coheir to their specific needs of reading for immediacy. With the combination of comic references and rich, factual evidence in the middle, the author successfully engages the reader in the essay.

Nicholas Carr successfully opens up the minds of his readers and forces them to assess their own experiences with the internet and other technologies. He provides several positive and negative examples of the internet, which makes his argument well balanced. Carr’s argument that the internet is causing people to lose their ability to think critically adds to the bigger issue concerning the creation of an artificial intelligence. I agree with the views of the author in the sense that the internet has changed some aspects of my own personal life, such as the way I research for school. However, I believe the author should have mentioned the millennium generation (aged 18 to 24) who grew up with the internet. The author fails to mention the way some millenniums can switch back and forth between internet usage for entertainment and reading lengthy articles for class. I would have added more information on younger generations to increase the validity of the argument by including different groups of people, and how their usage of the internet affects their ability to think critically. Nicholas Carr’s essay is well designed and successfully opens the minds of the reader, yet excludes some important facts that would have made his argument more diverse.