Student’s Name
Professor
Course
Date
Rhetorical Analysis: Is Google Making Us Stupid?
We live in a society that is being transformed by technological developments at a very high speed. Today, almost everybody relies on the internet to find information or to do research. The internet and artificial intelligence are altering the thinking capacity of human beings. People would rather avoid spending much time reading hardcopies to find information, but instead, they choose to use the internet because it has become a faster and reliable tool. Perhaps this is why Nicholas Carr writes the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Maybe he has been touched by how the internet is changing us and wonders if human beings will maintain their wisdom.
In his article, Carr tries to explain how information on the internet has altered our way of thinking. He applies various methods to bring forth his message. He plays with the audience’s emotions as he uses research, anecdotes, and personal observations to make convincing attempts to the audience that the use of the internet has become dangerous to our thinking and learning process. For most sections of his works, I believe not to be effective because of his tone, choice of sources, and organization.
He begins the article with a quotation from 2001: A Space Odyssey. He explains this and talks about how human is rewiring the computer, yet again he provides parallel information regarding how computers have rewired his brain. I had no idea of the kind of person Nicholas Carr was until I did a little research about him. He is among the respected authors who depend highly on his fame to convince his readers. However, if a reader, for example, does not know him, then I think much of this article is ineffective. After mentioning his opinion, he proceeds and talks about the way his friends have shared his sentiments. He says that they cannot read books anymore. Frankly, if his authority is not established, then I do not find his argument convincing either. Anybody can quote his friends. However, the friends of a famous author are probably more reliable than the friends of a student. He says that they are blog writers, which I believe does not establish authority because anybody can initiate blog posts. The claim he makes concerning how the internet alters the way we think by changing people’s expectations on the reading content is a little flatty without his authority or friends being made familiar.
After recognizing that these are just anecdotes, Carr proceeds and uses research from established sources as another tool. He cites a study accomplished by researchers at the University of London. However, he only says what was learned from the study but fails to make a claim. Consequently, he misses the opportunity to connect this vital source to his arguments. He also refers to Maryanne Wolfe, a developmental psychologist who explains that reading is not an instinctive skill and so the brain consumes information the way it is informed. At this moment, he says that the internet is transforming our way of reading, but he does not mention if he considers it good or bad. He fails to provide his stand. The third source that he uses is about the typewriter and writes how it changed his writing style. I do not think that it is on the same level as the other sources being cited regarding this source.
Carr also observes that other forms of media have changed in recent years. He says that newspapers and magazines have added “capsule summaries” and “info snippets.” He claims that even these other media forms have to follow internet styles because it is the current way people use to take the information. He also quotes the design director of The New York Times. He says that they decided to make the second and third pages of the paper summaries of articles to become more appealing to the “info snippet” lovers. Even though this may be correlated, the editor fails to say so, and seemingly, this may be only Carr’s observation.
Furthermore, the reader may have made similar observations in The New York Times, but most people no longer read this paper, and maybe some may not have even read it. Therefore, this argument may only work for a few people. He makes this claim, but once again, he fails to say if he believes it to be good or bad. Hence, the reader remains not sure about his position.
This article would have been more convincing if it were better organized. Many of the claims the author makes does not connect to his argument. He only hints at his opinions but does not state it until the end. This is very effective if, at all, he aims to make the audience think. However, I believe it is not his purpose to convince us whether the internet is altering our thinking and learning negatively. As he nears the end of the paper, it becomes a little clear that he wants readers to believe that it is not a good thing. Unfortunately, if what he believes in about today’s readers is true, most will stop reading his work even before clarifying his opinion. Concerning an opinion paper like this one, if he intends to establish interest, he should mention his opinion or at least provide a vivid hint about his position.
Carr appeals to the emotions of the audience. He begins by talking about how Google focuses on how to create “the perfect search engine.” He says that this implies that we can gain access to information and be more efficient thinkers, which most people would consider favorable. His choice of words in this paragraph was positive, and I also thought that, indeed, they are positive things. He proceeds and asks, “where does it all end?” which indicates an instant turn from his previous statements. I started seeing that his quotes were explaining what Google’s founders believed in, but instead, he shows that he does not also believe their objectives. He presented his ideas in a somehow mocking manner like he did not want people thinking he would ever believe the things they do. In the last few paragraphs, he uses phrases and words like “pancake people” and “haunting” to create imagery in the reader’s mind about the havoc being caused by the internet on our brains. Carr goes back and says he is “haunted” by it. Before that, he says he does not think that artificial intelligence can ever replace human intelligence because computers can only accomplish tasks based on the commands given to them by humans. I think the author saves his argument so that he creates fear in the audience who are most likely to get scared about what a computer will do to them in the future. It sounds like instead of us going to control the computer, it will control us.
To conclude, Nicholas Carr’s argument that the internet has altered our way of thinking is sufficient for a skeptical audience like himself. He only used tools that focus on an audience willing to believe him, and this is likely to be an audience of the older generation that lived before the internet existed. Because he heavily relies on his authority and examples that quickly make sense for somebody who lived then, it becomes hard for someone like me born in the internet’s generation to fathom. Thus, the article required a better presentation with stronger arguments.