Article: "Is Google Making Us Stoopid?" from TheAtlantic.com

15 Jul 2008 - 2:18pm
6 years ago
7 replies
573 reads
Jackie O\'Hare
2008

"Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it described,
but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too wordy,
when I have read it long time ago)."
----------------------

I totally agree. I found myself wondering whether it was done
intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning. It seemed
a little "meta" in that way.

I also found reading this article online a very interesting experience.
I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you were
reading the print article in the physical magazine.

Comments

15 Jul 2008 - 2:54pm
stauciuc
2006

Too long for me. Gave up reading up after two paragraphs. Does this prove
the article's point?

Sebi

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <Jackie at ttspersonnel.com>
wrote:

>
> "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it described,
> but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too wordy,
> when I have read it long time ago)."
> ----------------------
>
> I totally agree. I found myself wondering whether it was done
> intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
> types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning. It seemed
> a little "meta" in that way.
>
> I also found reading this article online a very interesting experience.
> I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you were
> reading the print article in the physical magazine.
>
>
>
--
Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/

15 Jul 2008 - 3:02pm
SemanticWill
2007

There are so many ways in which this article is bad. Bad research, bad
writing, faulty conclusions based on shakey premises. The title alone should
shy people away - it's sensationalistic. First - the author has no ability
to discern the difference between intellect/intelligence and literacy, or
intelligence and focus. This is not merely a matter of semantics. To use the
word 'stupid' implies that google indeed reduces I.Q. yet the author never
discusses intelligence anywhere in the article - he discusses focus, and
literacy. Further, his issue is not with Google qua Google - but with
Hypertext. Very, very different things. A well researched criticism of
hypertext as a medium, and it's effects on cognition would have been
interesting. This was not.

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Sebi Tauciuc <stauciuc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Too long for me. Gave up reading up after two paragraphs. Does this prove
> the article's point?
>
> Sebi
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <Jackie at ttspersonnel.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it described,
> > but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too wordy,
> > when I have read it long time ago)."
> > ----------------------
> >
> > I totally agree. I found myself wondering whether it was done
> > intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
> > types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning. It seemed
> > a little "meta" in that way.
> >
> > I also found reading this article online a very interesting experience.
> > I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you were
> > reading the print article in the physical magazine.
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
> http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 Jul 2008 - 3:29pm
Christine Boese
2006

gotta wade through all this thick ironizing here.... do y'all use spray
starch to help make the author's point? LOL.

Chris

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <Jackie at ttspersonnel.com>
wrote:

>
> "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it described,
> but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too wordy,
> when I have read it long time ago)."
> ----------------------
>
> I totally agree. I found myself wondering whether it was done
> intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
> types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning. It seemed
> a little "meta" in that way.
>
> I also found reading this article online a very interesting experience.
> I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you were
> reading the print article in the physical magazine.
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

15 Jul 2008 - 3:43pm
Christine Boese
2006

Generally, none of those adjectives readily describe Atlantic Monthly
articles (which also regularly hew to a requisite length-- 2,000 to 5,000
words-- I used to submit essays, and have the yellowing rejection slips to
prove it-- of which readers of the New Yorker and Harpers are also
accustomed).

Sensationalistic, bad research, bad writing. I've heard the Atlantic
criticized for being too conservative, too over-researched, too constipated
(that last one comes from me, over the past 20 years), but RARELY would
anyone hear it called "sensationalistic," and this is old school magazine
writing, fact-checked to death over a full month or more. The Atlantic is
known for publishing some of the best writing in the country.

I'm just saying. Putting the Atlantic Monthly in the same category with,
say, a Murdoch publication, begs absurdity.

On the other hand, I may have come across a error in it myself, but it may
be more along the quibble my old journalism prof had with saying a student
"graduated" instead of "was graduated." I take special joy in finding these
things, mostly because my wonderful old prof has passed away, and somebody
ought to still be able to do what he did, quibble, just to keep his memory
alive.

Chris

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Will Evans <will at semanticfoundry.com>
wrote:

> There are so many ways in which this article is bad. Bad research, bad
> writing, faulty conclusions based on shakey premises. The title alone
> should
> shy people away - it's sensationalistic. First - the author has no ability
> to discern the difference between intellect/intelligence and literacy, or
> intelligence and focus. This is not merely a matter of semantics. To use
> the
> word 'stupid' implies that google indeed reduces I.Q. yet the author never
> discusses intelligence anywhere in the article - he discusses focus, and
> literacy. Further, his issue is not with Google qua Google - but with
> Hypertext. Very, very different things. A well researched criticism of
> hypertext as a medium, and it's effects on cognition would have been
> interesting. This was not.
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Sebi Tauciuc <stauciuc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Too long for me. Gave up reading up after two paragraphs. Does this prove
> > the article's point?
> >
> > Sebi
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <Jackie at ttspersonnel.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it
> described,
> > > but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too
> wordy,
> > > when I have read it long time ago)."
> > > ----------------------
> > >
> > > I totally agree. I found myself wondering whether it was done
> > > intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
> > > types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning. It seemed
> > > a little "meta" in that way.
> > >
> > > I also found reading this article online a very interesting experience.
> > > I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you
> were
> > > reading the print article in the physical magazine.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
> > http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

15 Jul 2008 - 6:02pm
SemanticWill
2007

True -

But did the writer ever answer or even deal with the title - Does Google
make people stupid? What I meant by sensationalistic is that he/editor
intentionally choose google to grab readers even if the article had nothing
to do with Google search making people cognitively impaired. The article had
to do with the nature of hypertext, which I know you know - has been well
researched.

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Christine Boese <christine.boese at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Generally, none of those adjectives readily describe Atlantic Monthly
> articles (which also regularly hew to a requisite length-- 2,000 to 5,000
> words-- I used to submit essays, and have the yellowing rejection slips to
> prove it-- of which readers of the New Yorker and Harpers are also
> accustomed).
>
> Sensationalistic, bad research, bad writing. I've heard the Atlantic
> criticized for being too conservative, too over-researched, too constipated
> (that last one comes from me, over the past 20 years), but RARELY would
> anyone hear it called "sensationalistic," and this is old school magazine
> writing, fact-checked to death over a full month or more. The Atlantic is
> known for publishing some of the best writing in the country.
>
> I'm just saying. Putting the Atlantic Monthly in the same category with,
> say, a Murdoch publication, begs absurdity.
>
> On the other hand, I may have come across a error in it myself, but it may
> be more along the quibble my old journalism prof had with saying a student
> "graduated" instead of "was graduated." I take special joy in finding these
> things, mostly because my wonderful old prof has passed away, and somebody
> ought to still be able to do what he did, quibble, just to keep his memory
> alive.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Will Evans <will at semanticfoundry.com>
> wrote:
>
> > There are so many ways in which this article is bad. Bad research, bad
> > writing, faulty conclusions based on shakey premises. The title alone
> > should
> > shy people away - it's sensationalistic. First - the author has no
> ability
> > to discern the difference between intellect/intelligence and literacy, or
> > intelligence and focus. This is not merely a matter of semantics. To use
> > the
> > word 'stupid' implies that google indeed reduces I.Q. yet the author
> never
> > discusses intelligence anywhere in the article - he discusses focus, and
> > literacy. Further, his issue is not with Google qua Google - but with
> > Hypertext. Very, very different things. A well researched criticism of
> > hypertext as a medium, and it's effects on cognition would have been
> > interesting. This was not.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Sebi Tauciuc <stauciuc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Too long for me. Gave up reading up after two paragraphs. Does this
> prove
> > > the article's point?
> > >
> > > Sebi
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <
> Jackie at ttspersonnel.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it
> > described,
> > > > but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too
> > wordy,
> > > > when I have read it long time ago)."
> > > > ----------------------
> > > >
> > > > I totally agree. I found myself wondering whether it was done
> > > > intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
> > > > types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning. It
> seemed
> > > > a little "meta" in that way.
> > > >
> > > > I also found reading this article online a very interesting
> experience.
> > > > I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you
> > were
> > > > reading the print article in the physical magazine.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
> > > http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> > twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 Jul 2008 - 7:19pm
Christine Boese
2006

I was struck just the other day by a Marshall McLuhan quotation I hadn't
looked at in a good long while. It really shocked me out of my perspective,
sort of a revisioning, or perhaps, McLuhan might say, with time, I began to
recognize the pattern in the media reversal.

It was his famous bit about the global village in Gutenberg Galaxy.
Understanding Media is always fresher in my head, but like I said, a new
perspective, something I was reading in wikipedia, put it to me in another
way, not highlighting the interconnectedness of the global village, but
rather it's TRIBAL nature, particularly McLuhan's warning (yes, warning)
against FEAR as part and parcel of tribal-ness.

Namely, I got a dose of post-9/11 McLuhan, which I'd actually read some
years before. McLuhan didn't think the global village was such a good thing.
Sort of in the Ong sense, he did think it dumbed a culture down, even if he
was a big bad old technological determinist.

So McLuhan, in his riff on media being the message/massage, made the point
it doesn't matter what [Google] says/does, the message is irrelevant. The
message OF THE MEDIA is go tribal, go stupid. So you could watch PBS 24/7,
McLuhan would argue, and the predominant message you would get is go tribal,
go stupid, live in tribal fear.

Now how's that for some provocative food for thought?

Chris

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Will Evans <will at semanticfoundry.com>
wrote:

> True -
>
> But did the writer ever answer or even deal with the title - Does Google
> make people stupid? What I meant by sensationalistic is that he/editor
> intentionally choose google to grab readers even if the article had nothing
> to do with Google search making people cognitively impaired. The article had
> to do with the nature of hypertext, which I know you know - has been well
> researched.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Christine Boese <
> christine.boese at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Generally, none of those adjectives readily describe Atlantic Monthly
>> articles (which also regularly hew to a requisite length-- 2,000 to 5,000
>> words-- I used to submit essays, and have the yellowing rejection slips to
>> prove it-- of which readers of the New Yorker and Harpers are also
>> accustomed).
>>
>> Sensationalistic, bad research, bad writing. I've heard the Atlantic
>> criticized for being too conservative, too over-researched, too
>> constipated
>> (that last one comes from me, over the past 20 years), but RARELY would
>> anyone hear it called "sensationalistic," and this is old school magazine
>> writing, fact-checked to death over a full month or more. The Atlantic is
>> known for publishing some of the best writing in the country.
>>
>> I'm just saying. Putting the Atlantic Monthly in the same category with,
>> say, a Murdoch publication, begs absurdity.
>>
>> On the other hand, I may have come across a error in it myself, but it may
>> be more along the quibble my old journalism prof had with saying a student
>> "graduated" instead of "was graduated." I take special joy in finding
>> these
>> things, mostly because my wonderful old prof has passed away, and somebody
>> ought to still be able to do what he did, quibble, just to keep his memory
>> alive.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Will Evans <will at semanticfoundry.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > There are so many ways in which this article is bad. Bad research, bad
>> > writing, faulty conclusions based on shakey premises. The title alone
>> > should
>> > shy people away - it's sensationalistic. First - the author has no
>> ability
>> > to discern the difference between intellect/intelligence and literacy,
>> or
>> > intelligence and focus. This is not merely a matter of semantics. To use
>> > the
>> > word 'stupid' implies that google indeed reduces I.Q. yet the author
>> never
>> > discusses intelligence anywhere in the article - he discusses focus, and
>> > literacy. Further, his issue is not with Google qua Google - but with
>> > Hypertext. Very, very different things. A well researched criticism of
>> > hypertext as a medium, and it's effects on cognition would have been
>> > interesting. This was not.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Sebi Tauciuc <stauciuc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Too long for me. Gave up reading up after two paragraphs. Does this
>> prove
>> > > the article's point?
>> > >
>> > > Sebi
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <
>> Jackie at ttspersonnel.com
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it
>> > described,
>> > > > but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too
>> > wordy,
>> > > > when I have read it long time ago)."
>> > > > ----------------------
>> > > >
>> > > > I totally agree. I found myself wondering whether it was done
>> > > > intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
>> > > > types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning. It
>> seemed
>> > > > a little "meta" in that way.
>> > > >
>> > > > I also found reading this article online a very interesting
>> experience.
>> > > > I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you
>> > were
>> > > > reading the print article in the physical magazine.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > --
>> > > Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
>> > > http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
>> > > ________________________________________________________________
>> > > 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
>> > twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > ________________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

15 Jul 2008 - 7:33pm
SemanticWill
2007

We have already gone/been tribal. Look at your twitter connections - that is
your tribe. And the tribes boundries is the map without a territory because
it exists in Eco's hyperreality.

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Christine Boese <christine.boese at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I was struck just the other day by a Marshall McLuhan quotation I hadn't
> looked at in a good long while. It really shocked me out of my perspective,
> sort of a revisioning, or perhaps, McLuhan might say, with time, I began to
> recognize the pattern in the media reversal.
>
> It was his famous bit about the global village in Gutenberg Galaxy.
> Understanding Media is always fresher in my head, but like I said, a new
> perspective, something I was reading in wikipedia, put it to me in another
> way, not highlighting the interconnectedness of the global village, but
> rather it's TRIBAL nature, particularly McLuhan's warning (yes, warning)
> against FEAR as part and parcel of tribal-ness.
>
> Namely, I got a dose of post-9/11 McLuhan, which I'd actually read some
> years before. McLuhan didn't think the global village was such a good
> thing.
> Sort of in the Ong sense, he did think it dumbed a culture down, even if he
> was a big bad old technological determinist.
>
> So McLuhan, in his riff on media being the message/massage, made the point
> it doesn't matter what [Google] says/does, the message is irrelevant. The
> message OF THE MEDIA is go tribal, go stupid. So you could watch PBS 24/7,
> McLuhan would argue, and the predominant message you would get is go
> tribal,
> go stupid, live in tribal fear.
>
> Now how's that for some provocative food for thought?
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Will Evans <will at semanticfoundry.com>
> wrote:
>
> > True -
> >
> > But did the writer ever answer or even deal with the title - Does Google
> > make people stupid? What I meant by sensationalistic is that he/editor
> > intentionally choose google to grab readers even if the article had
> nothing
> > to do with Google search making people cognitively impaired. The article
> had
> > to do with the nature of hypertext, which I know you know - has been well
> > researched.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Christine Boese <
> > christine.boese at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Generally, none of those adjectives readily describe Atlantic Monthly
> >> articles (which also regularly hew to a requisite length-- 2,000 to
> 5,000
> >> words-- I used to submit essays, and have the yellowing rejection slips
> to
> >> prove it-- of which readers of the New Yorker and Harpers are also
> >> accustomed).
> >>
> >> Sensationalistic, bad research, bad writing. I've heard the Atlantic
> >> criticized for being too conservative, too over-researched, too
> >> constipated
> >> (that last one comes from me, over the past 20 years), but RARELY would
> >> anyone hear it called "sensationalistic," and this is old school
> magazine
> >> writing, fact-checked to death over a full month or more. The Atlantic
> is
> >> known for publishing some of the best writing in the country.
> >>
> >> I'm just saying. Putting the Atlantic Monthly in the same category with,
> >> say, a Murdoch publication, begs absurdity.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, I may have come across a error in it myself, but it
> may
> >> be more along the quibble my old journalism prof had with saying a
> student
> >> "graduated" instead of "was graduated." I take special joy in finding
> >> these
> >> things, mostly because my wonderful old prof has passed away, and
> somebody
> >> ought to still be able to do what he did, quibble, just to keep his
> memory
> >> alive.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Will Evans <will at semanticfoundry.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > There are so many ways in which this article is bad. Bad research, bad
> >> > writing, faulty conclusions based on shakey premises. The title alone
> >> > should
> >> > shy people away - it's sensationalistic. First - the author has no
> >> ability
> >> > to discern the difference between intellect/intelligence and literacy,
> >> or
> >> > intelligence and focus. This is not merely a matter of semantics. To
> use
> >> > the
> >> > word 'stupid' implies that google indeed reduces I.Q. yet the author
> >> never
> >> > discusses intelligence anywhere in the article - he discusses focus,
> and
> >> > literacy. Further, his issue is not with Google qua Google - but with
> >> > Hypertext. Very, very different things. A well researched criticism of
> >> > hypertext as a medium, and it's effects on cognition would have been
> >> > interesting. This was not.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Sebi Tauciuc <stauciuc at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Too long for me. Gave up reading up after two paragraphs. Does this
> >> prove
> >> > > the article's point?
> >> > >
> >> > > Sebi
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <
> >> Jackie at ttspersonnel.com
> >> > >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it
> >> > described,
> >> > > > but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too
> >> > wordy,
> >> > > > when I have read it long time ago)."
> >> > > > ----------------------
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I totally agree. I found myself wondering whether it was done
> >> > > > intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of
> the
> >> > > > types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning. It
> >> seemed
> >> > > > a little "meta" in that way.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I also found reading this article online a very interesting
> >> experience.
> >> > > > I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if
> you
> >> > were
> >> > > > reading the print article in the physical magazine.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
> >> > > http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
> >> > > ________________________________________________________________
> >> > > 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
> >> > twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > ________________________________________________________________
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >> ________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> > twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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
twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Syndicate content Get the feed