4 ms·

Nicholas Carr on deep reading and digital thinking

68 points by elorant 6y ago

ciarannolan 6y ago
His book, The Shallows, is an incredible journey into the human/technology relationship. As much as we create and change technology, it likewise changes us. Worth a read for anyone in tech. https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393339750 https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/d...
- shmageggy 6y ago
  How does it hold up almost 10 years later? The internet has changed a lot in that time. I recently became interested in reading this, but I was wondering if I'd be missing out on anything more recent.
  - kmote00 6y ago
    From the article: "His book, a finalist for the Pulitzer that year, was dismissed by many, including me. Ten years on, I regret that dismissal. Reading it now, The Shallows is outrageously prescient, offering a framework and language for ideas and experiences I’ve been struggling to define for a decade."
  - chrisbrandow 6y ago
    I have not read it, but Ezra says in his interview that reading it now makes him feel foolish that he was dismissive of the book(‘s argument) when it came out.
  - zahma 6y ago
    First, you should definitely listen to the full interview because they go into depth on the internet's effect on how we read and then conceptualize the information to make associations. These are the underpinnings of our analytic capability, and Carr believes that on the whole we're losing a lot more of our associational capacity that we used to have when our brains weren't bombarded with interruptions. Our brains like to hoard data, and the way the internet works and (increasingly often) designed to provide lots of tidbits that excite us and alter our neuroplasticity. They do go into some counterarguments. Also, an update to The Shallows has been re-released recently on the 10-year anniversary, which is why Ezra Klein interviewed Carr. Klein seems to have had a volte-face moment in which, as a blogger, he was dismissive of any critique about the internet because it was an instantaneous resource-rich environment. Now he understands that when he reads he's always searching for what he calls this "fugue-like" state of "deep reading" that allows him to understand and connect what he's reading to other arguments and topics.
  - ciarannolan 6y ago
    I think it holds up extremely well since it's more broad than just specific internet technologies. It's more of a history and sociology of humans and technology. I can't recommend it enough.
flocial 6y ago
One thing that surprised me about this pandemic is how vulnerable people are to misinformation and conspiracy theories on social media. For many people their idea of authority or "credentials" directly correlate with the strength of the source's social media profile (much like the impact factor of peer-reviewed articles only it feeds on itself). I don't know if they are simply looking for a theory to fit their current preconceptions or information that affirms their sense of self but it's really phenomenal. I honestly had no idea how many people I know could take these crazy conspiracies so seriously.
- sgt101 6y ago
  It's worse than you think. A lot of the people you know are taking lunatic theories seriously and not letting on because they have learned to self sensor their opinions.
- zahma 6y ago
  What are you on about? While I don't really disagree with what you wrote, this article and interview has nothing to do conspiracy theories and their propagation through social media.
  - flocial 6y ago
    Guilty as charged but I thought it was a reasonable jump to speculate on how there might be a cumulative effect of being in the "shallows" where critical thinking skills are atrophied and people are susceptible to misinformation. I did read the article but I was under the impression that HN doesn't restrict comments to the specifics of the article.
    - zahma 6y ago
      You could have bothered to include what you wrote above. At first glance, it looks like an unrelated and low-effort post. I was under the impression that the point of HN's comment section is informed contributions, which is what separates this place from Reddit's shitposting.
sgt101 6y ago
>"But we also lost something. One thing we lost is a lot of our visual acuity in reading nature and reading the world. If you look at older cultures that aren’t text-based, you see incredible abilities to, for instance, navigate by all sorts of natural signs. This acuity in reading the world, which also requires a lot of the visual cortex, we lost some of that simply because we had to reprogram our brain to become good readers." Or because larger numbers of people lived in cities and used craft skills to get money to live rather than hunting and gathering?
- camillomiller 6y ago
  Good point. And what if, from an evolutionary point of view, this new way of acquiring information is actually better in the long term?
lacker 6y ago
It’s ironic to read an article about how it’s a shame the internet is so full of distractions, when that article has multiple inline video advertisements.

68 points by elorant 6y ago

His book, The Shallows, is an incredible journey into the human/technology relationship. As much as we create and change technology, it likewise changes us. Worth a read for anyone in tech. https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393339750 https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/d...

shmageggy 6y ago
How does it hold up almost 10 years later? The internet has changed a lot in that time. I recently became interested in reading this, but I was wondering if I'd be missing out on anything more recent.
- kmote00 6y ago
  From the article: "His book, a finalist for the Pulitzer that year, was dismissed by many, including me. Ten years on, I regret that dismissal. Reading it now, The Shallows is outrageously prescient, offering a framework and language for ideas and experiences I’ve been struggling to define for a decade."
- chrisbrandow 6y ago
  I have not read it, but Ezra says in his interview that reading it now makes him feel foolish that he was dismissive of the book(‘s argument) when it came out.
- zahma 6y ago
  First, you should definitely listen to the full interview because they go into depth on the internet's effect on how we read and then conceptualize the information to make associations. These are the underpinnings of our analytic capability, and Carr believes that on the whole we're losing a lot more of our associational capacity that we used to have when our brains weren't bombarded with interruptions. Our brains like to hoard data, and the way the internet works and (increasingly often) designed to provide lots of tidbits that excite us and alter our neuroplasticity. They do go into some counterarguments. Also, an update to The Shallows has been re-released recently on the 10-year anniversary, which is why Ezra Klein interviewed Carr. Klein seems to have had a volte-face moment in which, as a blogger, he was dismissive of any critique about the internet because it was an instantaneous resource-rich environment. Now he understands that when he reads he's always searching for what he calls this "fugue-like" state of "deep reading" that allows him to understand and connect what he's reading to other arguments and topics.
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  I think it holds up extremely well since it's more broad than just specific internet technologies. It's more of a history and sociology of humans and technology. I can't recommend it enough.

flocial 6y ago

One thing that surprised me about this pandemic is how vulnerable people are to misinformation and conspiracy theories on social media. For many people their idea of authority or "credentials" directly correlate with the strength of the source's social media profile (much like the impact factor of peer-reviewed articles only it feeds on itself). I don't know if they are simply looking for a theory to fit their current preconceptions or information that affirms their sense of self but it's really phenomenal. I honestly had no idea how many people I know could take these crazy conspiracies so seriously.

sgt101 6y ago
It's worse than you think. A lot of the people you know are taking lunatic theories seriously and not letting on because they have learned to self sensor their opinions.
zahma 6y ago
What are you on about? While I don't really disagree with what you wrote, this article and interview has nothing to do conspiracy theories and their propagation through social media.
- flocial 6y ago
  Guilty as charged but I thought it was a reasonable jump to speculate on how there might be a cumulative effect of being in the "shallows" where critical thinking skills are atrophied and people are susceptible to misinformation. I did read the article but I was under the impression that HN doesn't restrict comments to the specifics of the article.
  - zahma 6y ago
    You could have bothered to include what you wrote above. At first glance, it looks like an unrelated and low-effort post. I was under the impression that the point of HN's comment section is informed contributions, which is what separates this place from Reddit's shitposting.

sgt101 6y ago

>"But we also lost something. One thing we lost is a lot of our visual acuity in reading nature and reading the world. If you look at older cultures that aren’t text-based, you see incredible abilities to, for instance, navigate by all sorts of natural signs. This acuity in reading the world, which also requires a lot of the visual cortex, we lost some of that simply because we had to reprogram our brain to become good readers." Or because larger numbers of people lived in cities and used craft skills to get money to live rather than hunting and gathering?

camillomiller 6y ago
Good point. And what if, from an evolutionary point of view, this new way of acquiring information is actually better in the long term?

lacker 6y ago

It’s ironic to read an article about how it’s a shame the internet is so full of distractions, when that article has multiple inline video advertisements.