Synthesis Essay: Does Technology Make USupid?
The technology that surrounds us is changing the way we think. Humans have been influenced by our technology since the dawn of civilization. Now, it is the Information age that has created a new kind of human intelligence, a change in our thinking worthy of great enthusiasm and intense scrutiny. It seems like the majority of people believe the Internet and new media has diminished our memory, our creativity, and our intelligence. There is even research into the neurological effects of using Google. But every new innovation, from the written word to the telegraph, has triggered the very same fears. We fear that life will never be the same, that our culture is fading, and our intelligence eroding. But just as we did in the past, we have adapted. We are learning to use our new technology in unpredictable ways. It is through the use of modern technology that we now learn more and retain it longer, and we write and think
…show more content…
with other minds across the world. In collaboration with our technology we perform at higher levels, accomplishing things that are impossible for our minds to achieve alone.
Clive Thompson, technology journalist and author of the book “Smarter than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better,” opens his book with a question that has fascinated chess players since the eighteenth century. Could a machine be better at chess than humans (Thomson 340)? The answer was finally found in 1997 when chess champion Gary Kasparov was beaten by Deep Blue, a chess playing super computer. Thompson says that when Kasparov was defeated “doom-sayers predicted that chess itself was over” (342). However, Kasparov’s defeat was really not very surprising to chess enthusiasts. The interesting thing is what happened next, when Kasparov decided to see what would happen if a machine and a human chess player worked together as a team.
Deep Blue’s calculations were an entirely different process from the thinking and intuition a human player would use. It’s not hard for us to imagine that the rules of chess can be interpreted by a powerful computer, which could predict and analyze the best move based on all the possible moves and past games. But chess Grand Masters spend a lifetime memorizing the world’s top games, relying on their ability to recall successful moves during the games. Even then, the human mind is no match to the memory capacity of a computer. However, the computer has no creativity, no human intuition, and no ability to analyze an opponent’s strengths, weaknesses, or moods (Thompson 343). When Kasparov paired a computer with a human chess player, he speculated that they would be more powerful than either one was alone. This hybrid chess team would have the strength of the computers processing power, and the intuition of the human mind. When Kasparov played with the help of a computer he said it freed him to focus on the creative texture of the game (Thompson 344). These human-machine teams continued to defeat teams made of only human grandmasters or only computers, even when the hybrid teams didn’t contain Grand Masters or supercomputers. Thompson points out that even an amateur can defeat a grandmaster-computer team if he was an expert at collaborating with computers (345).
Thompson uses chess and the story of Kasparov to begin his insightful look at human and machine intelligence, but he avoids popular concepts like information overload and the notion that technology is making us dumber or rewiring our brains. Instead, he argues that the intelligence of a computer is not, nor will it ever be, as powerful as the intelligence of the human mind when augmented by collaboration with computers. Thompson describes the way in which our technology, from the computer’s that defeat chess Grand Masters, to our search engines and social media, are now a part of our minds. Our technological tools are only changing the way we learn, remember, and interact with knowledge, not making us dumber, but smarter than we are without it.
Thompson doesn’t explore the deep technological and intellectual history of our relationship with computers, but the idea of positive human-machine collaboration is not a new concept. In fact, it is this idea that spawned the Internet and computers as we know it. In 1945, then-director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, Vannevar Bush, wrote the famous essay “As We May Think,” in which he focuses on the idea of extending our memory with a machine that would remember and connect human information. Bush's essay is structured around his design for the memex, his own invention that he describes as “a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory.” (6). Bush also notes the challenge of turning information into wisdom given the amount of information available, an amount of information that has grown inconceivably since 1945.
Bush stresses, which is still true today, that machines, or computers in the modern equivalent, could never replace human judgment and creative thought. He explains, “For mature thought there is no mechanical substitute. But creative thought and essentially repetitive thought are very different things. For the latter there are, and may be, powerful mechanical aids” (Bush 3). The human mind is very limited in its ability to transfer information between short-term and long term memory, and we’re much better off leaving that task to computers. With the use of computers we can store and retrieve information without relying on our memory. Now, with all the information available to us, the Internet is essentially a hard drive for our minds. There is no limit to what can find out if we want, but it is still up to us to create insight, knowledge, and wisdom.
In the 1960’s, most computer scientists concentrated on artificial intelligence and making computers smarter. But computer scientist Douglas Engelbart, who is credited with invention of the computer mouse, was interested in how computers could make humans smarter, or what he called augmented intelligence. In 1962, inspired by the work of Vannevar Bush, Engelbart published “Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework,” where he describes theories on interactive computing and human augmentation. Engelbart believed technology could augment human intellect by developing “an integrated hierarchy of cooperative man-computer process capabilities” (?). In his paper, Engelbart defined a concept called “man-computer symbiosis”, a system whereby humans and computers work in conjunction to “think as no human brain has ever thought and process data in a way not approached by the information-handling machines we know today” (?). The basic Google search is a simple example of Bush’s and Engelbart’s visions. The modern human mind is a system that goes beyond the brain and encompasses the world of information provided by our technology. New technological tools are important to our mental operations today, just as pencil and paper or even the written word was important in our history.
When writing was first invented, and people were no longer forced to remember as much, it changed the way they thought.
Writing became a tool they could use, but it didn’t make them dumber. Thompson notes how many people are panicking that our brains are being changed by today’s technology (354), but the evidence that technology makes us dumber is scarce and selective. Genevieve Roberts, journalist for The Independent, writes about the Google Effect in her article “Does Tech Make Us Stupid?” She writes that Dr. Maria Wimber, of the University of Birmingham's School of Psychology, believes the Google Effect, the theory that we've outsourced our memories to Google, “"makes us good at remembering where to find a given bit of information, but not necessarily what the information was” (Roberts). There is no question that the Internet has changed us, but we are living smarter. Having access to answers to any question imaginable is not making us stupid or lazy; it is strengthening our creative minds and allowing us to share ideas with others as never
before.
There are, of course, downsides to all technological advancements. Some people spend far too much time in front of screen, and Thompson warns of the challenge of knowing when not to use technology and engage with paper and books (355). Also, we have put a lot of power in the hands of a few large companies. But Google, Facebook, and Twitter have great potential to make us more knowledgeable, productive, and smarter than we’ve ever been before. The idea that technology is improving our minds is nothing new. Humans have been inventing tools for a long time that change our cognitive abilities; it is actually part of our evolution as a species. When prehistoric man developed language, it changed how they communicated and how they thought. The written word, the printing press, and the telephone, all extended the reach of the human mind. We now carry in our pockets easy access to all the knowledge of mankind. We can communicate on a level we could have never imagined. Modern technology is making us smarter, better connected, and often deeper, both as individuals and as a society.
with other minds across the world. In collaboration with our technology we perform at higher levels, accomplishing things that are impossible for our minds to achieve alone.
Clive Thompson, technology journalist and author of the book “Smarter than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better,” opens his book with a question that has fascinated chess players since the eighteenth century. Could a machine be better at chess than humans (Thomson 340)? The answer was finally found in 1997 when chess champion Gary Kasparov was beaten by Deep Blue, a chess playing super computer. Thompson says that when Kasparov was defeated “doom-sayers predicted that chess itself was over” (342). However, Kasparov’s defeat was really not very surprising to chess enthusiasts. The interesting thing is what happened next, when Kasparov decided to see what would happen if a machine and a human chess player worked together as a team.
Deep Blue’s calculations were an entirely different process from the thinking and intuition a human player would use. It’s not hard for us to imagine that the rules of chess can be interpreted by a powerful computer, which could predict and analyze the best move based on all the possible moves and past games. But chess Grand Masters spend a lifetime memorizing the world’s top games, relying on their ability to recall successful moves during the games. Even then, the human mind is no match to the memory capacity of a computer. However, the computer has no creativity, no human intuition, and no ability to analyze an opponent’s strengths, weaknesses, or moods (Thompson 343). When Kasparov paired a computer with a human chess player, he speculated that they would be more powerful than either one was alone. This hybrid chess team would have the strength of the computers processing power, and the intuition of the human mind. When Kasparov played with the help of a computer he said it freed him to focus on the creative texture of the game (Thompson 344). These human-machine teams continued to defeat teams made of only human grandmasters or only computers, even when the hybrid teams didn’t contain Grand Masters or supercomputers. Thompson points out that even an amateur can defeat a grandmaster-computer team if he was an expert at collaborating with computers (345).
Thompson uses chess and the story of Kasparov to begin his insightful look at human and machine intelligence, but he avoids popular concepts like information overload and the notion that technology is making us dumber or rewiring our brains. Instead, he argues that the intelligence of a computer is not, nor will it ever be, as powerful as the intelligence of the human mind when augmented by collaboration with computers. Thompson describes the way in which our technology, from the computer’s that defeat chess Grand Masters, to our search engines and social media, are now a part of our minds. Our technological tools are only changing the way we learn, remember, and interact with knowledge, not making us dumber, but smarter than we are without it.
Thompson doesn’t explore the deep technological and intellectual history of our relationship with computers, but the idea of positive human-machine collaboration is not a new concept. In fact, it is this idea that spawned the Internet and computers as we know it. In 1945, then-director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, Vannevar Bush, wrote the famous essay “As We May Think,” in which he focuses on the idea of extending our memory with a machine that would remember and connect human information. Bush's essay is structured around his design for the memex, his own invention that he describes as “a device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility. It is an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory.” (6). Bush also notes the challenge of turning information into wisdom given the amount of information available, an amount of information that has grown inconceivably since 1945.
Bush stresses, which is still true today, that machines, or computers in the modern equivalent, could never replace human judgment and creative thought. He explains, “For mature thought there is no mechanical substitute. But creative thought and essentially repetitive thought are very different things. For the latter there are, and may be, powerful mechanical aids” (Bush 3). The human mind is very limited in its ability to transfer information between short-term and long term memory, and we’re much better off leaving that task to computers. With the use of computers we can store and retrieve information without relying on our memory. Now, with all the information available to us, the Internet is essentially a hard drive for our minds. There is no limit to what can find out if we want, but it is still up to us to create insight, knowledge, and wisdom.
In the 1960’s, most computer scientists concentrated on artificial intelligence and making computers smarter. But computer scientist Douglas Engelbart, who is credited with invention of the computer mouse, was interested in how computers could make humans smarter, or what he called augmented intelligence. In 1962, inspired by the work of Vannevar Bush, Engelbart published “Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework,” where he describes theories on interactive computing and human augmentation. Engelbart believed technology could augment human intellect by developing “an integrated hierarchy of cooperative man-computer process capabilities” (?). In his paper, Engelbart defined a concept called “man-computer symbiosis”, a system whereby humans and computers work in conjunction to “think as no human brain has ever thought and process data in a way not approached by the information-handling machines we know today” (?). The basic Google search is a simple example of Bush’s and Engelbart’s visions. The modern human mind is a system that goes beyond the brain and encompasses the world of information provided by our technology. New technological tools are important to our mental operations today, just as pencil and paper or even the written word was important in our history.
When writing was first invented, and people were no longer forced to remember as much, it changed the way they thought.
Writing became a tool they could use, but it didn’t make them dumber. Thompson notes how many people are panicking that our brains are being changed by today’s technology (354), but the evidence that technology makes us dumber is scarce and selective. Genevieve Roberts, journalist for The Independent, writes about the Google Effect in her article “Does Tech Make Us Stupid?” She writes that Dr. Maria Wimber, of the University of Birmingham's School of Psychology, believes the Google Effect, the theory that we've outsourced our memories to Google, “"makes us good at remembering where to find a given bit of information, but not necessarily what the information was” (Roberts). There is no question that the Internet has changed us, but we are living smarter. Having access to answers to any question imaginable is not making us stupid or lazy; it is strengthening our creative minds and allowing us to share ideas with others as never
before.
There are, of course, downsides to all technological advancements. Some people spend far too much time in front of screen, and Thompson warns of the challenge of knowing when not to use technology and engage with paper and books (355). Also, we have put a lot of power in the hands of a few large companies. But Google, Facebook, and Twitter have great potential to make us more knowledgeable, productive, and smarter than we’ve ever been before. The idea that technology is improving our minds is nothing new. Humans have been inventing tools for a long time that change our cognitive abilities; it is actually part of our evolution as a species. When prehistoric man developed language, it changed how they communicated and how they thought. The written word, the printing press, and the telephone, all extended the reach of the human mind. We now carry in our pockets easy access to all the knowledge of mankind. We can communicate on a level we could have never imagined. Modern technology is making us smarter, better connected, and often deeper, both as individuals and as a society.