One of the biggest
revolutions that carried our society to be a more efficient and technologically
friendly era is the invention of Google. Google is a multi trillion-dollar
search engine that allows anyone in the world access to any type of information
they wish to know. Because this drastic change in present-day society has a very
large effect on the way lives are lived, there are many different views, both
positive and negative, regarding the large role it has on people now. Among
those who see Google as an increasing danger to us and the way we think is
Nicholas Carr. In order to educate people concerning the negativity he sees
behind Google, he argues his side in “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”. He claims
that Google is changing the way we used to think for the worse. He believes
this is evident due to him noticing a change in the way he now thinks with
Google being a part of his life.
Write second
paragraph to intro. Saying what I am going to be doing in my essay.
Carr’s main
strategy in his text is his implementation of ethos. He understands that due to
the nature of our society, it was evident that something like Google was bound
to exist. However, he didn’t know just to what extent it would change his
pattern of thinking. “Over the past few years, I’ve had an uncomfortable sense
that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the
neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory”(Course Reader 58). Truly this is a
subjective happening. It is foolish to think that an inanimate object like
“Google” can force itself into one’s brain and change the way people think. Carr
can simply just limit his use of the software in order to reverse what he
claims to be happening inside his head. His purpose is evident, however, that
he wishes to encourage the reader to look at the situation from a different
perspective. With the use of ethos, it is easier to see the bird’s eye view on each
individual situation. We can better understanding where we stand as individuals
and the importance Google has on our lives. The use of ethos furthers his
central claim by understanding that the opinions of others are subjective. “For
me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most
of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind”
(Course Reader 59). Although the use of his colorful and persuasive diction in
order to accurately illustrate where he stands in order to grab the reader and
make him seem more credible, he does leave is open for discussion. This is
apparent through the first few words in his quote when he specifies that his
feelings may be the same for others rather than telling his audience that this
is what is happening to everyone as a result from Google.
Another way Carr
strategizes to prove credibility to his audience is his abundant use of
authorities or “big names”. With the help of Maryanne Wolf, a developmental
psychologist at Tufts University, he claims, “we may be reading more today than
we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But
it’s a different kind of reading, and behind, it lies a different kind of
thinking” (Course Reader 60). He validates this by expanding his point through
Wolf who “worries that the style of reading promoted by the Net, a style that
puts “efficiency” and “immediacy” above all else, may be weakening our capacity
for the kind of deep reading that emerged when an earlier technology, the
printing press, made long and complex works of prose commonplace” (Course
Reader 60). This is the bulk of his article: fluff from other authorities. He
doesn’t put as much of his personal opinion as he should in his work because it
ends up drowning in the other information others provide. This is truly ironic
because he claims he is having a harder time thinking for himself since Google.
But here he is, using the ideas and experiences of others in his work to help
him complete his thoughts. Although he does use this strategy to build trust
within the reader for his argument, however he does overuse this strategy,
which plays as a devil’s advocate and makes his argument a little less effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment