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

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

Keeping text free

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 -

Alternative representations

Access to a film on a PC or a video screen is not the same thing as viewing it in the cinema anymore than a print of a painting is the same thing as the painting itself, but in all these cases these alternative representations serve at worst as acceptable memory objects within scholarly argument. They are, in short, very much different than original.s

At first glance this may not seem to be all that important until we remind ourselves that these new textual objects, call it what you will, are not really the same than originals .

See that post with different algorithms in metabole
See the journal French Metablog with today different posts
Enter Hypertextual as a member

Unity of opposites

Memex is bifold.

On one hand the author writes notes; on the other hand, there is insertion of the proper code and symbols of the post itself... Nevertheless, there is only one notion of the memex..So we can think of the Notion as the main principle of understanding a thing, the basic principle of a science, the core of someone’s personality, the key role of a social process or movement in history, etc. In dialectics, the Notion is a unity of opposites if it is to capture both the inner contradictions which motivate the thing and constitute its life-process, and its connection with its Other.In our case, there is no opposite at all but collocation of different principles...

See that post with different algorithms in metabole
See the journal French Metablog with today different posts
Enter Hypertextual as a member