To use this document:

1. Make a COPY of this worksheet.

2. Answer the following questions completely with your group.
3. Download the finished document as an MS Word file.
4. Upload your worksheet to the correct Blackboard submission link by Sunday at
midnight.

Discussion #4
Google Making Us Stupid

View the Discussion Week Instructions Before Beginning. This project should take about 1
hour if you’re meeting synchronously. If you’re completing the work asynchronously, you’ll need
to respond multiple times over the course of the week.

Use the two essays we read this week to complete the discussion:
● “Is Google Making Us Stupid”
● “The Internet: Is it Changing the Way We Think”

Directions:
Work with your group to create a conversation between Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google
Making Us Stupid” and the various people featured in John Naughton’s “The Internet: Is it
Changing the Way We Think?”

Write the conversation like a script or dialog. Use a combination of direct quotes AND
paraphrases for each of the voices.

Use templates from TSIS Chapters 4 and 5 to respond to Carr.

Each person in your group is responsible for one (1) of the writers/voices in the Naughton
article. Your group will not cover every writer in Naughton’s article.

The group as a whole is responsible for creating responses in Carr’s perspective and any
other supplementary transition material that make the dialog more coherent.

The goal here is to create a conversation where the ideas interact. I’m less interested in
perfection than your group demonstrating that you understand the various voices, opinions,
and stakeholders in the discussion.

THEN
Complete the reflection questions below.
Naughton: Hello, everyone. Today, we’ll be talking to Nicholas Carr about his explosive article
“Is Google Making Us Stupid?” I’ve invited the following writers and scientists to respond:

Names of the writers from Naughton’s Article that your group will discuss:
List the names
Geoff Dyer (agrees with Carr)
Sarah Churchwell (agrees with Carr)
Naomi Alderman (agrees as well as disagrees)
Ed Bullmore (Disagrees with Carr)

Naughton: To begin, Mr. Carr, why don’t you give us the main argument you’re making in your
article.

Carr: The internet has made our work very easy. We can quickly work through the comfort of
our homes whenever we want. We do not have to look at and read thousands of resources and
articles to research these days. Everything has become just a click away. One has to make a
few Google searches, click on the hyperlinks, and get the research done. The Internet has
made our lives easier. However, it has made us a lot dependent on it.

Naughton: So you’re not calling out Google, specifically. You’re arguing about the “impact that
ubiquitous, always-on networking is having on our cognitive processes.” and that “our
deepening dependence on networking technology is indeed changing not only the way we think,
but also the structure of our brains.”

Carr: Yes. I’m interested in the cultural effects of the internet on our reading habits and the
possible physiological effects.

Naughton: Geoff Dyer, what is your response to this? You seem to agree with Carr’s argument
mostly. But where do you differ?

Geoff Dyer: Yes, I agree with Carr’s argument because the internet has made our lives easier.
We can do research and everything easily. However, it has snatched our ability to concentrate
as we have become habitual of quick fixes. In one of my articles, I wrote, “Sometimes I think my
ability to concentrate is being nibbled away by the internet; other times I think it's being gulped
down in huge, Jaws-shaped chunks.”

Naughton: Fascinating. So what you’re saying is that the internet is helping us by aiding us in
the research but has downsides also. For example, it has made us dependent on it, and we
have started looking for quick fixes. But I believe others also agree with you. Would you like to
add to this conversation Sarah Churchwell?

Sarah Churchwell: Yes. I also think that the internet is helping us a lot in terms of providing
knowledge and resources but at the same time has made us dependent on it. But I have to say;
my perspective is slightly different. The Internet has made us dependent and has changed the
way of our thinking. Our brain is no more chronic of thinking. Like all the other muscles, our
brain is also a muscle that needs push and stimulation. If we do not give it enough room to
work, it will become stiff and flabby.

Carr: I see your points. Though Dyer and Churchwell seem to be on the same page regarding
the impacts of the internet, they may differ in terms of how this impact happens. For instance,
Ms. Churchwell says that the answer to this lies in the biological altering of brain functions, but
Mr. Dyer says that it has to do with concentration spans.

Naughton: Clearly, this is a meaningful discussion to be having. There are so many different
facets of the conversation that we can think about. Naomi Alderman, what is your perspective
on this?

Naomi Alderman: I think I would both agree and disagree with Carr. We can seek inspiration
through the internet, and it will help us do wonders, but at the same time, it makes us difficult to
stay focused; we might feel all drained up some days, Specifically “we can choose to seek out
brilliant thinking and be challenged and inspired by it. Or we can find our energy sapped by an
evening with a "poor me" friend, or become faintly disgusted by our thinking if we've read too
many romance novels in one go. As our bodies are shaped by the food we eat, our brains are
shaped by what we put into them”.
“

Carr: I liked Alderman’s point about the two sides being closer than they seem. I’d add that both
of his points are valid. From my perspective, the internet does make you feel disgusted
sometimes. It makes you feel down and frustrated sometimes. It becomes hard to focus on
things, especially the lengthy ones.

Naughton: I can see your point there. But it seems like we have to consider one other issue. Ed
Bullmore, you have a unique perspective on this. You don’t think Carr’s argument is persuasive.

Ed Bullmore: No, I don’t.I believe that apart from all these points, the internet has changed the
way we think about our brains. It has nothing to do with the biological alterations or
concentration powers.

Carr: I have to disagree. Bullmore is mistaken because he overlooks the fact that everything
here is interrelated. For instance, people are the byproduct of the content they consume. Due to
the little to no use of the brain, biological changes occur, and the concentration spans are
reduced. People, resultantly, start feeling wrong about their brains being less productive.

Naughton: I can see that this isn’t a topic we can settle on in a single conversation. I suspect
that the discussion about the effects of the internet will go on for quite some time. But it seems
that it’s a discussion worth having. Mr. Carr, why do you think it’s important for our
viewers/listeners to think about the effects of the internet.
Carr: I would conclude the discussion on this piece of text from my essay, “ I can feel it, too.
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. My
mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I
can feel it most strongly when I’m reading—immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used
to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d
spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my
concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin
looking for something else to do. I feel like I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the
text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle”.

Answer the following questions together as a group.

What was the most challenging part of putting this dialog together?

The most challenging part of this dialogue was integrating the clains and identifying the claims
in favaour of or againt Carr.

How does the dialog represent the research process or the writing of an argument?
How does it differ?

It is different because of the format, of course. However, it is similar because it helps gather
all the ideas in one place. It also helps to present the counterarguments.

How did you choose whether to quote or paraphrase the portions of the text?

I did both, but quoting is easier in the dialogue form.