Responses to Nicholas Carr's essay "Is Google Making Us Stupid."

Although in the past I have disagreed with much of what Clay Shirky has proposed, I chose his response to Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making us Stupid” essay as a good example of a thoughtful rebuttal.  Instead of attacking Carr’s argument that new technologies and computer programmers of these new technologies are largely to blame for societies shift from “deep reading” to “surface skimming,” Shirky creates a new argument proposing Carr’s essay is less about thinking and reading and more about an entire culture change.  I find it helpful when debating an issue if one begins to argue on a separate and more isolated point as Shirky did.  For example, Shirky didn’t argue that these new technologies are affecting societies reading practices.  In fact he embraced this claim.  Shirky decided to look at Carr’s essay as more of a cultural shift rather than an attack on literacy and thinking.  Overall I found this change of topic and focused argument often gets my attention more than does someone who just attacks the obvious main claims of another.

In addition I chose another rebuttal that was done in much the same way as Shirky’s.  Like Shirky, Douglas Rushkoff focuses less on Carr’s main claim that new technologies are endorsing less thinking and reducing reading and argues whether or not this can be seen as, in Rushkoff’s words, “a net gain or a net loss.”  Again arguing a separate isolated issue is more convincing and easier to prove than trying to attack the meat of Carr’s main claim, so to speak.  For example, it is obvious that much of what Google and other new internet technologies has done is create an abundance of information which has led to shortened attention spans and shorter texts.  It is hard to argue this point.  However, Rushkoff takes a different avenue and questions whether this is a bad or good thing or a smart or dumb thing for cultures. 

All in all I felt these two rebuttals portrayed a good understanding of how to disagree and argue a point without getting into a he said she said type of argument.  Each person, Shirky and Rushkoff, found two problems outside of the main claim and attacked those in a logical and thoughtful manner.  As to my own ideas on the internet and literacy, I do share many of the same ideas that were pointed out in both rebuttals.  This may help to influence why I thought they were effective.  In any case, I believe these two writers developed two very good rebuttals. 

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/07/why-abundance-is-good-a-reply-to-nick-carr/ - Clay Shirky

http://www.edge.org/discourse/carr_google.html#sanger – Douglas Rushkoff