“According to an extensive 2009 study conducted by Ball State University’s Center for Media Design, most Americans, no matter what their age, spend at least eight and a half hours a day looking at a television, a computer monitor, or the screen of their mobile phone. Frequently, they use two or even three of the devices simultaneously.”
– Nick Carr (The Shallows) –
Nick Carr has a worry and it is this: he suspects his use of the Internet over the last twenty years may have altered his brain. Literally. He worries that his attention span has been greatly shortened and he is losing his ability to read and think “deeply.”
He may be right.
It’s the subject of his latest book, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. Of course, simply articulating the question prompts many others. One of the first that occurred to me was, if he has lost something is it due to the Internet or to something else, such as the effects of getting older? If he has lost something, what has he gained and how do the two balance out?
He asks questions such as these himself in his book. He begins with a short introduction that refers to Marshall McLuhan and technology and more or less sets the stage for the book that is to follow and its thesis that technology, specifically the Internet, changes us.
History, the brain and neuroplasticity
He then dives into his book, beginning from a personal perspective and drawing on the views of others as he speculates on the impact of current technology.
As the book progresses, he provides a social and cultural history, as well as a biological one (at least as far as the brain goes). He outlines a history of the written word, reading and draws on the studies and findings of scientists regarding how the brain adapts.
For a very long time, the standard view was that the brain was an unchanging thing. It developed through childhood and then was set. Case closed. More recently (historically speaking) that view has changed. The studies and data show the brain does change and continues to change despite age. It is called neuroplasticity.
Depending on stimuli, the brain changes to accommodate. For example, Carr says, “Thanks to the ready adaptability of neurons, the senses of hearing and touch can grow sharper to mitigate the effects of the loss of sight.”
This business of neuroplasticity comes with warning labels, however. As Carr puts it, “Plastic does not mean elastic … Our neural loops don’t snap back to their former state the way a rubber band does; they hold onto their changed state.”
The brain rewiring itself also relates to behaviours that can become pathological, such as in the cases of addiction.
Mr. Gutenberg’s contribution
Carr goes on to discuss Gutenberg and the printing press and the impact that technology had on the world – literally affecting Western thought for centuries … until now. This is part of his argument: certain technologies literally change us, our brains, our society and culture.
The advent of words, for instance, changed how the brain operated because different areas had to interact, areas that previously did not. Books affected us (just as clocks and maps did) not simply because they were books but because they were linear. Page followed page. It was a way of seeing and, more significantly, a way of thinking.
The one aspect of Carr’s book I’m uncomfortable with is what I perceive as a romanticized view of reading and writing. It’s not excessively done but I’m always distrustful of views like that, just as I’m distrustful of views of technology that make it all seem absolutely wonderful. I like Carr’s book partly because he is taking a non-romanticized view of Internet technology. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to do that regarding books.
But that doesn’t negate his argument; it just impedes it a little.
Assessment
It was inevitable that I would like this book. It touches on all my favourite topics: reading and writing, technology, the brain and others. Overall, it’s well worth reading for anyone, regardless of whether you agree with Nicholas Carr or not. Technology does have an impact on us and in The Shallows you get some sense for the extent of that impact as well as its subtleties.
With what we currently know of the brain and neuroplasticity, it seems to follow that how we use the Internet, and the extent to which we do, cannot help but alter us. The questions are whether or not that is a good or bad thing; what is gained and what is lost; have we any choice in the matter; and, how exactly are we being altered?
For Carr, it is at the expense of deep thought.
(Author’s note: I have not completely read The Shallows; I am at the midway point of the book. In my defense, it is while I am reading that I am most engaged by a book and eager to discuss it. As with travellers who send letters and emails about “what we’ve seen so far,” this is an “in-the-moment” review and, I think, valid as long as this disclosure is made.)
Image via WikiCommons
Related posts:

It does sound like an interesting book, although I wonder if I would get more out of the The Shallows than I would reading the plasticity piece and then following the links, so to speak.
Not trying to be critical; just playing devil’s advocate.
Thanks Bill!
I thought about it a bit more and while I can’t speak for Carr I think what he is saying is this:
You have an equation: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10
If you jump elsewhere after 1 + 2, either ahead to the conclusion or follow a link then return, what you see is 1 + 2 = 10. If you agree, you’re wrong because it equals 3. If you disagree, you do so for the wrong reasons because you didn’t see the full equation.
Taking Carr’s book as an example, in order to agree or disagree with him, you need to see his full argument. As with other books, it lays out predicates and ends with a conclusion. His conclusion may be correct, but what if he has misread his predicates? What if his assessments of history, the brain, technology, are incorrect? His conclusion would be wrong, although correct in the context of his interpretation of the predicates.
That sounds egghead-ish. But I think this is at least part of what he means about losing the ability to read “deeply.”
Pretty reasonable points, Bill.
I think is argument is that you would be moving horizontally and never going more deeply. I’m not sure I agree but I think he has a legitimate argument.
More interesting to me is an encounter I just had in the park; a flesh and bone example of brain and body “rewiring” to heal themselves. I just posted “This world will amaze you.” Basically, I met a guy with a brain injury. He’s been in a wheelchair for six years. He hadn’t walked until last week. Now he was in the middle of Odell Park. It was an absolutely thrilling encounter!
There are actually a variety of particulars like that to take into consideration. That is a great level to carry up. I supply the ideas above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions just like the one you bring up where a very powerful factor will be working in trustworthy good faith. I don?t know if greatest practices have emerged around issues like that, but I’m certain that your job is clearly recognized as a good game. Each girls and boys feel the impression of only a moment’s pleasure, for the rest of their lives.