The Dance of the Technological Mind
The contemporary notion of dance has taken on a new art form, executed swiftly at the will of our fingertips. As they glide gracefully across the keyboard like the perfect ballroom dance, we become captivated by the luminous spotlight of our personal computers. These devices, our gateway to the digital stage, cast us in the spotlight of the World Wide Web. Starstruck by this limelight of tech, we are constantly craving more and more exposure with each passing day.
The desires we harbor for this dopamine rush have been constantly shaping us– preparing our minds for a techno-centric future. Newer and more effective forms of this drug slip into our everyday lives much more rapidly than ever before—and how can we not embrace it? It feels too good not to. Published authors Sam Anderson and Nicholas Carr, notorious for their contributions to The Atlantic Magazine and The New York Times, execute their literary dance highlighting the notable shift from the present to the future. They continuously mention the idea of plasticity of the mind– that we are gradually adapting to an environment in which restlnessness will become new focus.
However, with the benefits of adaptability, we are matched with a similarly notable concern of mental strain and consistent distraction. Every leap toward the digital world eludes us from ourselves as our attention spans become increasingly disjointed. We have become more consumed by our need for mental stimulation. Multitasking has become a more common trend among us. These conditions have the capacity to cause challenges in concentration and deep thinking, which may also have detrimental effects on our descendants. Amidst the rise of techno-cognitive nomadism and information gluttony, we must question whether such progress is enhancing our well-being for the next generations.
While our brains may become more adept at processing information, we face the risk of cognitive overload. The constant flow of daily notifications, emails, and information is tenfold, if not more, then the previous generation. In an interview between In Defense of Distraction author Sam Anderson and University of Michigan professor David Meyer, Meyer remarks “I get calls all the time from people like you. Because of the way the Internet works, once you become visible, you’re approached from left and right… I just can’t deal with it all. None of this would have happened even ten years ago. It was a lot calmer. There was a lot of opportunity for getting steady work done” (Anderson 4). Here, Meyer claims that his own life has become negatively impacted by the effects of technological distraction. He bitterly admits that his life, along with the lives of others, has been consumed by a pandemic of information gluttony.
Similarly to that of Anderson, Nicholas Carr, author of the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, remarks on this constant buzz. However, his statement on the topic isn’t so similar, as he skeptically considers how “In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can “access” and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers” (Carr 6). As Carr points out Google’s mission, along with the perks that go along with their statements, he also makes note of previous historical precedents. With attempts to poke and prod at such precedents, including the concept of time and the creation of books, he creates a strong barrier of fuzziness when addressing the Luddites of our era.
While I heavily consider what both Anderson and Carr are saying regarding these excerpts, my views go much beyond what is considered here. There must be much room for grey areas when addressing these concerns. Firstly, when we level with the viewpoint of Meyer, I understand where he comes from. While I may not have any firsthand experience in this aspect of productivity before technology, I have family and friends in my life who can. Growing up with my parents constantly trying to adapt to their new devices, I understand the intimidation of the new realm our world has begun to morph towards. The web has become a powerful domain, binding mail, networking, and research—including much more—all at the convenience of your fingertips. Consequently, while it may be very hard for someone who is not used to this tool to launch into this new form of connectivity, it might be much easier for the natives of technology to grasp.
In connection with Carr’s statement, I am also skeptical about his implications. When he mentions the term “Industrial efficiency,” these words come off as very robotic and mechanicalized—something antithetical to that of human nature. While we may not be the most effective model, we hold an essence of natural, biological beauty, which should be admired much more than the autonomous and industrialized replicas of ourselves. Additionally, as we fuse this efficiency with a matter of productivity and thinking—we must realize that not everyone connects in the same way. We may extract information in altering ways, but do we truly consume this information as Google suggests—or implies we do? Perhaps this is just another matter of generational plasticity concerning our technological natives as they nomad across the plains of the World Wide Web.