Draft #1

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 are caught 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 the dopamine rush of tech 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 and that adapting to an environment in which restlessness will be an advantage for modern society.
However, with the benefits of adaptability, we are met with the risks of mental strain and consistent distraction. Every stride we take 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. More notably, we are forcing ourselves into mental overdrive. These conditions hold the potential to lead to challenges in concentration and deep thinking and can only have detrimental effects on our generational descendants. Amidst the rise of techno-cognitive nomadism and constant distraction, we must question whether such progress is truly enhancing our well-being and for the next generations to come.
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, than what the previous generation would have. In an interview between 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)…

Draft #2

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.

Final Edition:

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, amongst other devices. As these devices, our gateway to the digital stage, cast us in the spotlight of the World Wide Web, we crave them more and more 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 technological drug slip into our everyday lives much more rapidly than ever before—and how can we not embrace them? It feels too good not to. Published authors Sam Anderson and Nicholas Carr, both known for their contributions to The Atlantic Magazine and The New York Times, respectively, execute their literary dance. As they do this, they comment with different perspectives on 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 technology shapes us. However, with the benefits of adaptability, we are matched with a similarly notable concern of mental strain and consistent distraction. Amidst the rise of information gluttony and techno-cognitive nomadism, I believe that we should be skeptical to whether such progress is truly enhancing our generational health similar to Carr’s perspective.

While our brains may become more adept at processing information, we face the risk of cognitive overload. In an interview between author Sam Anderson and University of Michigan professor David Meyer in Anderson’s “In Defense of Distraction”, 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.” (4). Here, Meyer claims that his own life has become negatively impacted by the constant buzz of the internet, bitterly admitting that we have been consumed by a pandemic of information gluttony. Anderson, however, feels taken aback by such news, as he finds our adaptation to technology’s information necessary for cognitive progression. Carr similarly shares his concern on this constant buzz in “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, however he poses that “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” (6). As Carr points out Google’s mission however, he draws parallels to historical precedents such as the advent of books, creating a strong barrier of fuzziness when addressing the efficacy posed by technological advancement. With much thought, I share Meyer’s concerns and Carr’s skepticism about conforming to a technological mind. Firstly, I empathize with Meyer’s viewpoint of technological intimidation, addressing the experience of productivity without it. While I may not have any firsthand experience, I recognize my parents’ challenges in navigating the web’s boundless info. As the internet has become a powerful domain, binding mail, networking, and research—including much more— it can be very difficult to manage and track where you are and what to do next. This is the most difficult part of the Web for my parents, as they can get lost online quite easily with the swarm of functions it offers us. Carr, on the other hand, seems to point out an alternate argument. While he poses this thought, he touches on the “Industrial efficiency” of our world. Like what Carr would think, I believe that this notion comes off as very robotic and mechanicalized—something antithetical to that of our innate natural beauty. Flaws and all, our cognitive processes are complex and diverse. The idea of uniform function Carr states when reinforcing Google’s standpoint overlooks this previous statement. Therefore, this progress towards a completely technological mind would strip us of one of our most important faculties, as there is much yet to be discovered concerning technology’s effects on cognition.

Similarly: the thought of techno-cognitive nomadism, otherwise understood as the constant movement of our minds, is continuously dancing along in the back of our heads. Anderson contributes to this statement, noting how “Researchers have discovered, for instance, that a brain receptor associated with ADHD is unusually common among certain nomads in Kenya, and that members who have the receptor are the best nourished in the group. We may all be evolving toward a new techno-cognitive nomadism, a rapidly shifting environment in which restlessness will be an advantage again” (11). Anderson addresses the fact that perhaps this way of thinking should be harnessed and accepted rather than refuted. Relational to the former paragraph, Carr once again poses a stance of skepticism. “Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives—or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts—as the Internet does today. Yet, for all that’s been written about the Net, there’s been little consideration of how, exactly, it’s reprogramming us. The Net’s intellectual ethic remains obscure” (5). Carr states that the effects that technology possesses on the human brain are not yet fully understood– there is just as much room for reward as there is risk. Although Anderson attempts to make a positive claim about this technological neuroplasticity, I strongly believe that the shift towards a more “ADHD-centric mind” is detrimental to conventional (and successful) learning methods. For example, the new educational model for elementary students in Maine has completely uprooted how students, such as my nephew, take instruction from their teachers. For example, there is a very new addition model taught in elementary schools. For this model, students are taught to utilize making tens groups and then institute the friendly numbers method to subtract from landmark numbers. Seeing this new format of learning is nearly unfathomable to me, as it’d seem much easier to carry over your numbers in the cross-addition form. Sure, children are learning ways that cater for their visual engagements, but is this the most effective method? Taking Carr’s thoughts into perspective, I believe we need to conduct further research into how the brain is evolving regarding our neurological development when exposed to technology. Considering we live in a generation in which Luddites and technological natives exist simultaneously, there will be many opportunities to conduct such research. This research will allow us to better understand our cognitive health in exposure to technology and its mind-altering effects.

Ultimately, while Anderson suggests leaping towards the technology-centric neuroplasticity the modern world offers us, I find myself coordinated with Carr’s skepticism. Is sacrificing our natural cognitive diversity for the cause of a uniform technological paradigm the most ethical approach? We must tread carefully, as this waltz towards this future may be leading us in the wrong direction, landing us in a state of comprised mental faculties. To prevent this undesirable situation from ever occurring, I believe there must be a strong front in techno-cognitive variability research. Such research will allow us to strike a balance between technological advancement and cognitive preservation. Additionally, research examining the neurological processes of our generation in response to such technology will provide a nuanced understanding of such functions. In doing so, we can acknowledge our responsibility to future generations, ensuring an enrichment in techno-cognitive development. Only by embracing the responsibility we bear can we approach this argument with grace, preserving the essence of what it means to be authentically human.

Works Cited:

Anderson, Sam. “The Benefits of Distraction and Overstimulation — New York Magazine – Nymag.” New York Magazine, 2009, nymag.com/news/features/56793/.

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic, The Atlantic, July 2008, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/.

‌