The adaptability of the brain – neuroplasticity – has made it so that we have changed the way we think, and therefore, the way we do research. My intention with this essay to explore neuroplasticity, as characterized by Generation Y’s internet use and the transformation of the Library Sciences.
Carr writes about neuroplasticity to emphasize the idea that the internet has changed the way we think. The concept of neuroplasticity is interesting to me, because it uses science to give shape to the miracle of human consciousness. I realize it’s a bit of broad way to start out, but I intend to narrow my scope through exemplification.
However, because this is an argumentative essay and not just an exploratory one, I have to have an opinion somewhere in there. I frequently use and praise the internet, so it would be hypocritical of me to argue that the internet’s effect on our brains is detrimental. However, I cannot deny how difficult it is for me concentrate for long periods of time. As a result, my stance on the matter is a little unstable. Every time I try to think about it, I end up contradicting myself.
I understand that I will have to pick one side – if only for the sake of being able to write and clear and cohesive essay – but for now I’m just going to continue to weigh both arguments against each other.
It’s going to be really difficult for me to argue that the internet is ultimately beneficial — especially since Carr, our primary source of information for this unit, seems to think otherwise.
I have to acknowledge the notion that the internet destroys the ability to concentrate for extended periods of time. I may have a short attention span, but if there’s one thing I’m good at it’s making connections. The nature of the internet allows us to absorb more information in a quick and timely manner, thus encouraging us to consider more perspectives and think on broader scale. (Though that’s not necessarily true — there’s an abundance of voices on the internet, and it’s pretty easy to ignore the ones you disagree with. You can immerse yourself in like-minded people because there is no shortage of them.) Being able to draw connections may not be able to provide the same kind of innovation that extensive thinking does, but it certainly makes improvement easier.
As much as I love libraries, I also have to acknowledge that the internet undermines their authority as research institutions. The way the internet presents information is much easier to process than reading books. In fact when I read, I often find myself wishing I could press ‘ctrl + f’ to find what I’m what I’m looking for. However, not everything on the internet is a reliable source. Books are generally more credible because the publishing process is brutal in terms of fact-checking and editing. And the fact that libraries are used more for WiFi and public services than they are for actual research isn’t issue with society, so much as it is an issue with the system. The systems need to change to accomodate the people, not the other way around. As for the field of Library Science itself, well, it’s going through nightmarish changes right now — but at the very least, the final product will be easier and more accessible. It’s just a matter of being able to filter through the crap to get to what’s really pertinent.
But let’s say I argue the opposite side. The internet is detrimental to our thinking processes, in the sense that it wrecks our potential for concentration. I am living proof of this — which is why I always feel like Carr is mocking me, even when he tries to apologize for putting me through literary hell. I’m an English major who can’t sit down and read, and it makes me feel like I’m a caricature of myself. The internet makes it so that the information we need is condensed and available to us with a simple search tool. Though it’s convenient, it keeps us from being able to think on our own terms.
In addition to that, the internet essentially renders libraries impotent. Library systems across the US are losing money because nobody uses libraries for research anymore. And who reads physical books anymore? eBooks are cheap, portable, and there’s a built in ‘ctrl + f’ function on every eReader.
—
The problem with taking the pro-internet stance is that there’s so much room for contradiction. I feel like making so many allowances would undercut the strength of my argument. However, if I take the anti-internet stance, I sound far too cynical for my liking. And I feel like I’d fall into a slippery slope argument.
So basically I have no idea what to do with myself, but I’m working on it.