Speed of human intellect and hypertext

The idea for organizing information, which allowed the user to select and display any stored section of information was first imagined by Vannervar Bush.

The “Memex” couldn’t be built then in 1945. It wasn’t until 1960 that Theodor Nelson, who studied computer programming had an idea of “hypertext”. It was not until 1968 that the prototype for the hypertext was developed by Douglas Englebart. The Augment system he developed was used in organizing the government’s research network, called the ARPAnet. This first internet linked all information as “group memory” with it’s appropriate documents to with government projects. 1975 Andries Van Dam , a computer engineer collaborated with Mr. Scholes, an English professor at Brown University.

By making hypertext available in different windows this Non-linear learning style reinforced new ideas and methodologies. It’s interesting to note that with hypertext linkage readers could now go through books at the speed of human intellect. I’m sure we have all experienced having to look in numerous books for the information needed for a research project.With this new introduction of hypertext, slowly boundaries of specialized careers are being removed. The controversy of text plagiarism soon erupted as Publishing industry protected their profit by forming copyright laws. In regards to claims of owning words, I also agree with keeping text free, it is just the ideas such as an invention that a person should be recognized for in their own right. Hypertext opened many doors to new ideas and inventions that groups of differently trained professions would otherwise not have collaborated with each other. To try and ban these is a constriction of future advances in all fields.

Download ebooks on http://www.frenchtheory.com/ - See that post with different algorithms in metabole - See the journal French Metablog with today different posts -
Labels: Englebart, hypertextuality, linearity, memex Jean-Philippe Pastor

So clever yes we are

Is Google making us stupid?

Idea Watch: Is Google Making Us Stupid?
Posted by Tom Weber

Ever worry that all that time you spend on the Web might be rewiring your brain? In the July/August issue of the Atlantic magazine, writer Nicholas Carr confesses to that fear–and explores this question: “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”

In a nutshell, Mr. Carr’s argument is this: Spending so much time reading on the Web is training us to accept information in small bites, and that’s worrisome. He writes:
“Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy … 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 as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.”
Of course, the notion that the surf-happy world of the Web is affecting our attention span isn’t new. Even before the rise of the Web, other types of media–such as music videos–were being blamed for the same thing. But Buzzwatch suspects many readers will see something of themselves in the article’s description of people cramming ever-more bits of information into every last moment online.

Writes Mr. Carr:
If we lose those quiet spaces, or fill them up with “content,” we will sacrifice something important not only in our selves but in our culture.
Readers, do you feel that spending time on the Web is rewiring your brain? And if yes, do you care?

Permalink Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/buzzwatch/2008/06/10/idea-watch-is-google-making-us-stupid/trackback/

Save & Share:
wsj:http://blogs.wsj.com/buzzwatch/2008/06/10/idea-watch-is-google-making-us-stupid/
Yahoo! Buzz Share on Facebook Del.icio.us Ever worry that all that time you spend on the Web might be rewiring your brain? In the July/August issue of the Atlantic magazine, writer Nicholas Carr confesses to that fear–and explores this question: “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”
In a nutshell, Mr. Carr’s argument is this: Spending so much time reading on the Web is […]
--> Digg this Email This

Read more: Memes, Search, Idea Watch

Comments
I don’t know — what was the question again? My attention drifted off before the end of the post . . .
Comment by Independent Girl - June 10, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I did have a comment on this article but I’ve moved on in the past couple of minutes.
Comment by Common Sense - June 10, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Susan Jacoby, former Washington Post reporter and author of The Age Of American Unreason, talked about this back in February.

“A Nation Of Idiots?”http://www.boom2bust.com/2008/02/19/a-nation-of-idiots/
Comment by Boom2Bust.com - June 10, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I’ve found I’m just as able to immerse myself in some books and articles, but less so for other books and articles. Generally, the ones I’m able to immerse myself in are those that are good, and those I’m not able to immerse myself in are those that are mediocre or bad. If there is a crowding-out effect, it’ll be on bad books, and I don’t really have a problem with that.
Comment by Bob's My Uncle - June 10, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Why is this blog so slow?
Comment by Nevermore - June 10, 2008 at 2:21 pm
The same effect has been proven with television and kids, so it makes sense. Too many changes (commercials), too much content.
Comment by Sorry...wasn't paying attention... - June 10, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Its easy to see Mr. Carr has been Googling way too much
Comment by 823077 - June 10, 2008 at 3:37 pm
i definitely agree with this and have felt it much more difficult to read an “e-book” than a real book… If I print the book out then I’m fine…
Comment by boner to boner - June 10, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I’m an old guy. I am so much better informed now then in pre-google. And, because of these vast information tools I now am able to accomplish life’s tasks better and quicker. I now have time to appreciate a good read, nature, art and travel. I am in my best of times. And, not dumber but smarter I should think. Appreciate the gains you can expect from these tools in the future. Lucky you.
Comment by mark - June 11, 2008 at 8:34 pm
stupid google
Comment by s - June 11, 2008 at 8:58 pm
i shall perform a google search to find the answer to this question
Comment by e$ - June 12, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Trackbacks
[…] our look earlier today at concerns that the Web may be rewiring our brains for short attention spans, Buzzwatch thought it appropriate to highlight this video making the […]
Trackback by Buzzwatch : Daily Diversion: The Democratic Primary--For Short Attention Spans - June 10, 2008 at 4:51 pm
[…] The best answer to the question on copy length came to me at a seminar I attended: “People don’t read long copy or short copy. They read what interests them.” That’s why relevancy is even more important today then it was in 1988. People have information overload and, because of Google, perhaps, people have shorter attention spans. That was the theory I came across at a recent Wall Street Journal Blog entitled: “Is Google making us stupid?” […]
Trackback by Google=Stupid? « Marketing That’s Measurable - June 12, 2008 at 1:38 am

Google's effect on our mind

In the debate over Google’s effect on humanity, everyone is missing one big issue
Posted on June 19, 2008 by Douglas Bell

Yes, again: The cover story that launched a thousand blog posts.
For the second time this week, I’m taking my lead from The Atlantic (it’s the best magazine in the world right now, making even The New Yorker appear precious and overwrought). Unsurprisingly, the two articles that stirred me to blog were both (a) about the Web and (b) rife with fundamental, flummoxing misperception. I’ve already written about Mark Bowden’s piece on the Web-induced demise of The Wall Street Journal. Now for the big kahuna: Nicholas Carr’s take on Google. Titled “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” this cover story has been sticking in bloggers’ craws all week, inspiring them to pee on hydrants to mark their view on the current state of media, the Web and the human condition. Carr’s view is clear: the hypertext world of Google is slowly eroding our capacity for sustained contemplation, thereby flattening our collective intelligence. One thing is also clear: the piece has an enormous blind spot.

Some agree with Carr, of course:
Is this a new way of thinking? And will it affect the way we read and write? If blogging is corrosive, the same could be said for Grand Theft Auto, texting and Facebook messaging, on which a younger generation is currently being reared. But the answer is surely yes—and in ways we do not yet fully understand. What we may be losing is quietness and depth in our literary and intellectual and spiritual lives. —Andrew Sullivan in The Times of London

Some disagree:
Maybe the reason why Nick and so many other literati are losing their patience with long form information is that it is so fundamentally inefficient and inferior to connected bits of information.
You look at a book, read a book, and you easily perceive a coherent whole. You look at all the information on that book’s topic on the Web, all connected, and you can’t see the sum of the parts—but we are starting to get our minds around it. We can’t yet recognize the superiority of this networked thinking process because we’re measuring it against our old linear thought process.
Nick romanticizes the “contemplation” that comes with reading a book. But it’s possible that the output of our old contemplation can now be had in larger measure through a new entirely non-linear process.—Scott Karp at seekingalpha.com

But here’s what both sides in the debate missed: Google’s motivation in all this is money. For all their drivel about corporate responsibility (Google’s motto is the impossibly pretentious “Don’t be evil”), Google “monetizes” (lovely word that) what Karp calls “networked thinking” by charging fractions of whatever currency to place links nearer to the front page of a given search.
And guess what? Google couldn’t care less whether this new form of thought is our salvation or our damnation. In business speak, they’re “content agnostic.” The debate about which is the better mode of rumination for optimal human development—algorithmic/hypertext or monastic/contemplative—is nothing but a sideshow.

So long as the dollar calls the tune at Google, it seems to me that how we read—Carr’s po-faced lament notwithstanding—is somewhat less problematic than whether what we read is the straight goods or just another ad campaign done up in digital drag.

• Is Google Making Us Stupid? [The Atlantic]• Idea Watch: Is Google Making Us Stupid? [Wall Street Journal]• Google is giving us pond-skater minds [The Times]• Connecting the Dots of the Internet Revolution [Seeking Alpha]• How Google ate my brain [Globe and Mail]
Back to Spectator Home
Categories: General, Internet, Over the Border, Magazines
Permalink

Download ebooks on http://www.frenchtheory.com/ - See that post with different algorithms in metabole - See the journal French Metablog with today different posts -

Intellectual Property

This month’s issue of WIPO Magazine features an article about the daily blogging life of IPKat blogger Jeremy Phillips, named by Managing Intellectual Property Magazine in 2005 as one of the 50 most influential “people” in the IP world. Jeremy shares some thoughts on the rise of the IP blog.

In offering insights into IP blogging, Jeremy raises an interesting: “But can you trust them?” To this, he responds:

Critics of blogs complain that, while law journals are refereed and books carefully checked before publication, blogs undergo no equivalent quality control process. That’s true, but most blogs enable readers to post their own comments, so that a blogger’s mistakes can be pointed out, his questions answered and his position on issues of the day endorsed or rejected. Most IP bloggers also cite their sources or hyperlink directly to the source of their information.

Other critics object that bloggers are too selective: they may write up the Da Vinci Code dispute if they like the outcome, but ignore the spat over plagiarism of Harry Potter if they don’t. This criticism misses the point: a blog records what the blogger wants to get across. It is not an encyclopaedia – and what for example Patent Baristas chooses to leaves out, Patently-O may wish to feast on – or vice versa.

So, what does it take to be an IP blogger? Jeremy sums it up nicely in stating “Asking what it is like being an IP blogger is a bit like asking what it’s like to be a human being.” Although, he mentions that it helps to have patient and understanding family and colleagues.

So, what does Jeremy think is in it for the bloggers?

Some of us do it out of a missionary zeal to convert readers to IP in general, or to our personal views concerning it. Others seek to build up recognition, and hence business, in their fields of expertise. Some just do it for the fun. But there’s one thing you can be sure of: for as long as blogs are free, none of us does it for the money!

If you know of a new IP blog that should be noticed, let us know.

Download ebooks on http://www.frenchtheory.com/ - See that post with different algorithms in metabole - See the journal French Metablog with today different posts -