Recently there’s been a lot of research and discussion about the impact of the Internet on brain function.
The reviews have been mixed. Some studies indicate that surfing the Internet can enhance brain function in older people. That’s a good thing.
On the other side of the argument is a recent article by Nicolas Carr in the Atlantic Monthly, Is Google Making Us Stupid?. In the article, Carr said that his ability to concentrate is evaporating–he said that it has become more difficult to read books or lengthy articles, material that used to be easy for him to digest. “Deep reading” has become a struggle, and he blames the change on the Internet. Citing some research as well as anecdotal cases, he asserts that we are becoming a generation of word skimmers rather than true readers. We are power browsers, not researchers.
I have to say I partially agree with Carr. I’m finding it harder to battle my way through lengthy prose unless it’s so well written and dramatic that it keeps me riveted. In my case, I can pin some of the blame on hydrocephalus, because concentration is supposed to be an issue with that condition. (The brain shunt surgery I’m having later this month should fix that problem). For other people, though, the question remains: Is the Internet altering our brain circuitry in the area that controls deep, sustained attention? Is it enhancing our ability to multitask and “info jump” at the expense of more intense levels of thought and concentration?
The debate makes me wonder what the Internet might be doing to writers. After all, we’re the ones who are supposed to be creating the “lengthy, rich prose” and books for other people to read. If our brains are being rewired somehow by the Internet, what impact will that have on our writing? Has this change already begun to happen? How would we even know?
As a random check, I just browsed over to
The book is supposed to be funny, and it’s had great reviews. I’m sure it’s written in lengthy, rich prose, filled with merit. I’ve heard it was developed from, or inspired by, the author’s
Readers, meet your future.
— KL
p.s. And here’s a question–did you make it to the end of this blog post without skipping off to one of the hyperlinks? If so, God bless your un-rewired brain. If not, no worries. We all do it, more and more all the time.
Kathryn, I don’t know if I can blame it on the Internet or just old age, but my attention span has decreased over the last few years. I’ve turned into a scanner, and rarely read entire newspaper or magazine articles, instead just skimming a few paragraphs before moving on. I put more books down after 50 pages than finish. Deep reading is tough unless what I’m reading directly relates to me. If all you say is true, then I’m the typical victim of what’s going on here. But I did read your post to the end without clicking on a link. I get credit for that, right?
Don’t know about the internet affecting brain function but I think it’s a distraction. Found that blogging, Facebook stuff & email checking was cutting into or interrupting my writing time so I cut way back. Did read through the entire post without clicking a link so my attention span hasn’t hit the gnat-like level yet. Hope all goes well with your surgery.
Like Joe, I think Nicolas Carr should consider that our brains naturally change with age rather than blaming his problem all on Google. And no, I can’t say that I made it all the way through the post without clicking on at least one of the links. But I don’t see that as necessarily a bad thing. I did read the whole thing, but I went off to see if I could figure out who this Nicolas Carr fellow is before I continued reading. I always like to know who I’m listening to before I blindly accept what they have to say. I think what we’re seeing isn’t the loss of attention span as much as it is that we as writers have less control over the reader’s attention. Today the reader begins reading in search of a solution to a problem. As long as what we’re saying applies to that problem the reader will stay with us, but when we deviate (rather than the reader deviating) from his problem, the reader will find another source of information that focuses on the problem at hand.
Thanks, Joe and JaxPop for reading all the way through! I seldom do when I see an interesting link–I’m like a magpie snatching up a bright shiny object. I just have to click on it. Timothy, you have a good point, but I would like to see research about the effects of age and “deep thinking”. Sometimes we are quick to blame age when there’s something else entirely going on. Do we know, for example, if younger people are being similarly affected? My guess is yes. The jury is out as to whether our brain circuitry is actually being changed by constant use of the Internet. The data is too sketchy and incomplete at this point. As I’ve been delving into what’s known about brain chemistry and function, I’m amazed by how much is not currently understood. I’m looking forward to hearing about the results of more research (which I fervently hope someone out there is doing).
I forgot the question…
LOL, John!
Damn, Miller…you stole my line!
I see this problem in everything around us these days. When was the last time you watched a movie that had a deep, slow-developing plot, characters you cared deeply about, and a message? Instead, we have eye candy explosions, very thin plot lines, and superficial or stereotypical characters.
A few weeks ago we had a woman fired by the White House over out-of-context comments made in a speech in which only 3 minutes was viewed and no one (not the White House, press corp, etc) bothered to watch the entire speech. No one cared to take the time.
Our news has been boiled down to headline grabbers and a two minute argument by “guests” of either side of an issue where nothing gets resolved and people just shout over one another.
I remember when I was growing up sitting down with a monster of a novel (usually by Stephen King) where I had to dig my way through pages and pages of prose in order to care about the characters and their surroundings, and in the end it made for a better story. If you wanted action right away, you would read a short story. Now that’s all changed, and I can’t say I’m happy about it. Not sure if it’s the Internet, but it sucks either way.
Matthew, your observations are spot on. I don’t know what’s causing it–the Internet, the 24-hour news cycle, a globalized technocracy–but it’s as if the movers and shakers of the globe have all developed a severe case of ADD. As you point out, a moment of real attention was not even given to review a tape that could have spelled the end of a woman’s career. Too little attention is given to…oops, my Tweetdeck just beeped. Have to bounce off to check who just sent out a Tweet. Later!
Yes, actually, I did get through the whole post without clicking on anything, but I generally do. Unless I feel a cited resource may be needed for my understanding of what’s to come, I right-click, open in a new tab, and finish what I’m reading. Then I go and read the cited link. So, in essence, I find that I read way more online than I would read if the same post were, say, in a newspaper.
Which is not to say that I don’t see the effect you speak of. Watch an old movie back-to-back with a new one, and count the number of times the viewpoint switches from one camera angle to another. It used to be 2 or 3 a minute — now it’s 20 or 30. Commercials used to be a minute long, now they’re 10 or 15 seconds. Newspaper articles are cut up into bullets and cluttered with sidebars and “infographics” (note the scare quotes — neither I nor my browser’s spell-checker think that’s a word).
However, I would like to caution against a premature statement that the internet is causing the effect, as opposed to the possibility that the internet is simply displaying the same symptoms as the rest of our society.
I would rather suspect that the actual disease has its roots in the cultural drive toward multi-tasking. We read while we’re online, checking Facebook and Twitter and listening to music and waiting for that video to finish loading. We eat while we drive while we listen to an audiobook while plan tomorrow’s interview with The Boss. We rush rush rush to get the lawn mowed with a gasoline mower so we can have time to go to the gym and work out. We are driven and fast and hard, and we have no time to do one thing at a time and to do it well.
My Google Reader still says 112, seven email addresses are standing at a combined total of 17, the clock’s ticking inexorably onward toward noon, and I still have my thousand words to get out. I need to eat something, the dog needs to go out, she needs her nails clipped, TweetDeck is beeping at me.
Hurry, hurry, hurry. Haste makes us noticed.
I think it started with MTV videos. Fast changes and all that. Now everything is immediate payoff like Matthew said. Immediate gratification rules the world.
Definitely it rules the world. I just wonder if it changes the neurons.
I recently reviewed a study of children that demonstrated a significant association between amount of TV and computer screen viewing per day and the frequency of ADD diagnoses(a number of issues with the study support caution in blindly assuming causal relationship).
Nonetheless I do believe that there are multiple new age societal influences negatively impacting the ability/inclination to lock on and track complex information.
The sound bite and thirty second summary of involved news events are examples.
I got through your post without interruption. Provocative or intelligent commentary still holds attention. But for how much longer?
I quit watching TV in ’92(ish) and haven’t watched much modern TV since then (and I haven’t missed it). But I can tell you on the rare occasions I’m at someone’s house and watching some show on TV, it is a very distressing thing to watch the 50 million per second camera changes that occur in recent programming vs what I grew up on.
Likewise, “too-busy” looking websites or magazine layouts are great annoyances.
As to reading, I’ve been slightly affected (I do skip around on emails and blogs but that’s just as much stress from too many things to do as anything) but my favorite books are still the ones written many decades ago when writers took their time.
I wonder if the ADD thing is why there appears to be fewer epic stories out there? Or maybe there aren’t fewer and it just seems that way…
TJC,that’s interesting about the study suggesting a possible link between heavy TV/Internet use and ADD. I’m not surprised if there’s something to it–I feel like the whole society is getting ADD. BK, it’s always amazing to me when I see an old TV advertisement from the 60’s. They always seem incredibly long and slow. Everything has sped up.
Things always change. People go online to read news now. They are reading on their kindles and listening to music on their phones instead of using record players. Big deal, that doesn’t mean we’re getting dumber or losing our attention spans. I read long books and I go on facebook.
People have complained about the new generation of books and movies for decades. I’m sure ten years ago there was some month when some book similar to “ish my dad says” was at the top of the best sellers list. There have been 30 second commercials for as long as I can remember. Watch the superbowl and there are still minute long commercials. I agree, sometimes it seems like everything is changing too fast but one thing I’ve learned from reading historical fiction and some historical non fiction is it has always felt that way!
That’s a reassuring perspective, Taylor. Here’s hoping you’re right!
As a writer, the biggest effect the Internet has on my ability to concentrate is to distract me from writing the book. There’s too much to do in terms social networking, commenting on blogs like this one, Tweeting, and such that those activities can become all consuming. The only way to accomplish our daily goals is to finish our writing quota before checking what is online. Ditto for reading. Find a quiet spot and assign yourself time to relax and read.
Kathryn, I made it all the way through your fine essay without wandering off, but I certainly take your point. There is so much out there that it is very easy to become distracted or to go off point. I was researching an 18th Century slang term for a specific body part and two hours later discovered I was on far afield. Well, not that far afield but far enough. My son tells me that both the general and specific term for the internet and its websites is “time bandit.” Indeed.
As both an IT professional and a budding writer I concur with the concept that we must go “off the grid” once in a while if we are to get anything done.
Problem is, I am addicted to the web. I’ve been using it since 1989 (before the “internet” as we know it come to being). And now have a hard time not looking at my blackberry/laptop/pc every few minutes.
Lately when I try to write though I just disconnect from the WiFi and leave my Blackberry up in the bedroom. Its the only way to get stuff done.