Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Book Review: The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains
Review by Rachel Zelkowitz

Buy this book

A+ A- Text Size

Review by Rachel Zelkowitz

By Nicholas Carr

Web edition: August 13, 2010
Print edition: August 28, 2010; Vol.178 #5 (p. 28)

Enlarge
The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains by Nicholas Carr

In 2008, science and technology writer Nicholas Carr asked in The Atlantic if Google is “making us stupid.” His latest book is an effort to answer that question and, more broadly, to explore how the tools of the Internet age are altering the way people find and use information.

Carr spends much of the book exploring how technology has shaped human habits of information consumption. Written language, for instance, made the poet-historian’s memory less crucial. With Gutenberg’s printing press, reading became widespread and the human brain, ever plastic, adapted to new demands. Now, the shift to online information is causing further neural changes but, Carr argues, mostly to ill effect.

Carr maintains that the Internet encourages distraction and superficiality. The sheer volume of information overwhelms anyone’s ability to absorb it. So instead of becoming absorbed, users browse from link to link to Twitter feed, gaining a broad but shallow appreciation of the available information. Carr cites psychology and neuroscience experiments to illustrate how vulnerable the human brain is to distraction and how such inattention can reduce comprehension and memory.

While Carr’s social history of an information revolution is solid, his concerns about how the Internet may alter neural mechanics are based on data that are still sparse. His take on the problems of the plugged-in brain is sure to spur debate, though — both online and off.

W.W. Norton & Co., 2010, 276 p., $26.95.
Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

Comments (4)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • Well, it's quite clear not too many folks will be overly distracted by this or any other SN review. If they were any briefer, many of the entries would be shorter than the book titles SN bothers to mention.

    Or is the reason this "review" by Rachel Zelkowitz is as short and "superficial" as it is because of what the author, Nicholas Carr, writes about?

    Brevity is a fine thing. But it is also subject to the drawbacks of excess...meaning that it's implementation (on the net and elsewhere in this all-consumming commercial culture) may indeed produce the results which Carr might be writing about.

    But who would know? Certainly not from a 233-word review, of which a mere 28 specifically address any potential problem in Carr's treatise, as far as the reader of this review is invited to judge, on the strength that the mechanics the author relies on are "based on data that are still sparse".

    The level of irony on this one leaves one blinking in amazement.

    I don't need a superficial review of a book on the subject of superficiality in the net or the commercial marketplace which supports the vast majority of sites to convince me of what I've already regarded for over five decades to be blindingly obvious. In that respect, this review does little more than mention the existence of a book I might buy, basically, because 'it's there'.

    Thanks for pointing it out, but I'll pass.

    If SN is going to bother "reviewing" a book, it would be nice to see more than a few hundred words devoted to one that actually merits a mention in the first place. Even Carr might then rest assured I might actually bother to pay attention and even buy the book.
    Adolf Schaller Adolf Schaller
    Aug. 17, 2010 at 7:26am
  • Yet another irony is that this review, at 233 words, is the longest for any SN book review that I've read online. Most SN book reviews have been frustratingly brief. Even at this length I agree with Mr. Schaller that the review is superficial. Perhaps SN should have written a feature article about the hypothesis itself and presented the data pro and con, rather than just review a book about it. But even then SN may still be accused of being superficial because it is of necessity a brief treatment of a complex subject. Isn't that what reporting does, condenses info? Where does a magazine [or any news outlet] draw the line between depth and brevity? Not sure what the happy medium is here, I'm sure SN has been struggling with this conflict since its inception.
    Morris dancer Morris dancer
    Aug. 21, 2010 at 4:53pm

  • =============== h t t p : / / w w w . p o p b u y n o w . c o m
    ==============
    Hello, summer, good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready?
    free shipping
    competitive price
    any size available
    accept the paypal Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16 New era cap $15 Bikini (Ed hardy) $25 ============== h t t p : / / w w w . p o p b u y n o w . c o m
    ===============
    nike rift nike rift
    Aug. 25, 2010 at 9:56pm
  • Adolf, Morris,
    Thank you both for pointing that out to us. Pretty sure I would have missed it otherwise.
    Robert Alderman Robert Alderman
    Jun. 10, 2011 at 2:54pm
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us