Does Google Be Making Us Stupid?

Joanne Jacobs comments about a growing phenomenon: kids who refuse to read books. They only read online.

A would-be English major, 15-year-old Nadia doesn’t like to read books.

On paper, text has a predetermined beginning, middle and end, where readers focus for a sustained period on one author’s vision. On the Internet, readers skate through cyberspace at will and, in effect, compose their own beginnings, middles and ends.

...Some traditionalists warn that digital reading is the intellectual equivalent of empty calories. . . . Zigzagging through a cornucopia of words, pictures, video and sounds, they say, distracts more than strengthens readers.

Nationally, teens’ reading scores are flat or declining as fewer youths say they read for fun. But some say reading tests don’t measure the “digital literacy” skills young people are developing online. _JJ

The Atlantic goes a bit further and asks: Is Google Making Us Stupid?

For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through my eyes and ears and into my mind. The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many, and they’ve been widely described and duly applauded. “The perfect recall of silicon memory,” Wired’s Clive Thompson has written, “can be an enormous boon to thinking.” But that boon comes at a price. As the media theorist Marshall McLuhan pointed out in the 1960s, media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles.

...I’m not the only one. When I mention my troubles with reading to friends and acquaintances—literary types, most of them—many say they’re having similar experiences. The more they use the Web, the more they have to fight to stay focused on long pieces of writing. Some of the bloggers I follow have also begun mentioning the phenomenon. Scott Karp, who writes a blog about online media, recently confessed that he has stopped reading books altogether. “I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader,” he wrote. “What happened?” He speculates on the answer: “What if I do all my reading on the web not so much because the way I read has changed, i.e. I’m just seeking convenience, but because the way I THINK has changed?”

Bruce Friedman, who blogs regularly about the use of computers in medicine, also has described how the Internet has altered his mental habits. “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” he wrote earlier this year. A pathologist who has long been on the faculty of the University of Michigan Medical School, Friedman elaborated on his comment in a telephone conversation with me. His thinking, he said, has taken on a “staccato” quality, reflecting the way he quickly scans short passages of text from many sources online. “I can’t read War and Peace anymore,” he admitted. “I’ve lost the ability to do that. Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.” _Atlantic

How about you? When surfing on the web, it is easy to lose track of time. Time that might have been spent reading books or dissecting research can easily go to more superficial "skimming" on an incredibly broad range of topics. Are we sacrificing depth for breadth? Or worse yet, are we sacrificing both depth and breadth for the illusion of breadth?

We have spent a lot of time on this blog discussing the topic of "psychological neoteny"-the lifelong persistence of learned adolescent helplessness and cluelessness. What if important developmental milestones--critical periods of development--are being missed by current methods of child-raising, education, and recent childhood/adolescent leisure activities?

Substituting video games, the internet, and electronic chatting for reading, physical play, and face to face communication, cannot help but have consequences. Perhaps something is gained to compensate for what is lost? Difficult to say. It deserves a close look.

"Then What the Hell Good Are You, Anyway?"

If you hear the words in the title, the next thing that happens to you may not be pleasant. Most people have the absurd idea that other persons should be "good for something." For example, a woman expects her man to either provide well financially, or be very, very good at other things she values almost as much. A man expects his woman to be sexually available, to keep an attractive appearance and a clean living environment. If the expectations are not met, then "what the hell good are you, anyway?"

A boss expects the worker to provide value to the business at least as great as the salary and benefits package provided by the job, hopefully more. A parent expects the college student to return good grades in exchange for support. Those people sitting down below expect you up on the stage to put on a good show. A driver in the oncoming lane expects you to stay in your own damned lane. If not, "what the hell good are you?"

Social expectations prop up the greater part of the world in which we live. While we want to believe we are valued by others for our inner selves--our "intrinsic" value as people--deep down we know that is not true. True, there are political and religious ideologies that dwell on the intrinsic value of each living person, but in reality people who claim to believe that are the worst form of hypocrite. Give them that excuse they are waiting for to hold you in contempt, and they will happily do so.

"What have you done for me lately?" If the answer is nothing, or worse than nothing, the relationship is in danger of coming to a bad end. People expect you to "hold up your end." What is "your end?" It depends. But you should probably figure that out before your end starts to droop. In personal relationships, things are not spelled out as clearly as in a business or legal contract. The terms of the contract are implied, but still very close to ironclad. Get the picture clear in your mind, in detail. Otherwise, unhappy surprises await you.

Usually the sole exception to the rule is "home." Home is the place where when you go there they have to take you in, said Robert Frost. Something about home can make a hard person soft. The contractual calculus of home is somehow different.

So if you really want to be valued for your "intrinsic worth" in a relationship, you need to make it home. If your boyfriend doesn't see you as "home", you need to understand what he expects from the "contract", or you may be in default, in his mind. But if your hard-hearted boss sees you as "home" somehow, she will do everything she can before firing you, no matter how incompetent you may be. But that's not likely to be the case. More likely, you're on a hair-trigger in most of your relationships. Learn to size up the territory, and tread carefully.

Normally, there would be no need to spell things out so bluntly, but society has taken a very narcissistic, psychologically neotenous direction. Such a society, like a fallen Rome, is ripe for the plucking by more reality driven populations. It either wakes in time to save itself, or it goes the way of most complacent cultures that have rotted from within.

New LGdL Essay on Intelligence

La Griffe du Lion has a new essay on intelligence guaranteed to burn the thong off any self-respecting professor of Women's Studies. Liz Spelke and Nancy Hopkins may have trouble with occasional dizzy spells if they are unwise enough to read it. Donna Shalala should likewise maintain her distance.

The world of data can be cruel to one's ideological conceits.

Thanks to iSteve.

Update: This article in the Independent goes even further in claiming that there are twice as many men with IQ > 120 than women with IQ > 120.

Dr Paul Irwing is a senior lecturer in organisational psychology at Manchester University. He claims that men are more intelligent than women.

All the research I've done points to a gender difference in general cognitive ability. There is a mean difference of about five IQ points. The further you go up the distribution the more and more skewed it becomes. There are twice as many men with an IQ of 120-plus as there are women, there are 30 times the number of men with an IQ of 170-plus as there are women.

I don't know why this is, all I can say is that we have a huge amount of data.

In my 2005 paper in the British Journal of Psychology we looked at 22 surveys sampling 20,000 university students. In 21 out of the 22 studies males always had an advantage.

Hat tip Fatknowledge Blog.

The above research appears to fit with work by J. Phillippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Helmuth Nyborg. In addition, such research should exonerate Larry Summers, if not for the perverse bias caused by radical political correctness in academic circles.

National Academies of Science Report Recommends Forcing Women Against their Will

A recent report from the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) can find no "good" reason why women are deciding not to go into tenured university positions in upper level science, math, and engineering. The committee of "experts" nevertheless recommends broad, sweeping and massively expensive changes to the way that the US federal government, large foundations, and universities deal with the issue of women in the sciences.

A committee of experts looked at all the possible excuses -- biological differences in ability, hormonal influences, childrearing demands, and even differences in ambition -- and found no good explanation for why women are being "locked out".

Source.

Women have made astounding gains in education in North America, the committee admitted. But since women are not choosing to go into science and math PhD teaching positions in elite universities at the same rates as men, they should be forced to make other choices than they would choose for themselves, the report implies. If women with top level mathematics and scientific skills are making other career and life choices, such as private industry labs, think tanks, or government labs--then society needs to spend massive amounts of money to force them to change their minds.

Forty years ago, women made up only 3 percent of America's scientific and technical workers, but by 2003 they accounted for nearly one-fifth. In addition, women have earned more than half of the bachelor's degrees awarded in science and engineering since 2000. However, their representation on university and college faculties fails to reflect these gains.

Source.

Well, of course, if women have different goals for themselves than the goals that this particular NAS committee has for them, the women should be forced to change--there is no other conclusion to be drawn.

Women make up over 70% of psychologists with graduate degrees. Women are achieving parity (and greater) in most law schools and medical schools. Women make up almost 60% of recipients of bachelors degrees in North America, and since it takes time for the wave of women graduates to roll through higher education and university faculties, one can expect even greater gains in those areas for women. There is nothing that motivated women cannot accomplish in the free atmosphere of North America and Europe.

Yet, for political reasons, a NAS committee has recommended massive overhauls to the operation procedures for government funding, large foundation grants, and university policy, so that women can be favoured in science, math, and engineering--even if women by themselves would make other career and life choices.

There are some women who are clearly as good as the highest level of male scientists and mathematicians, and who should have the opportunity--if they choose--to go to the highest levels of those fields, within universities or any other system that employs scientists and mathematicians. Some of them are choosing to go into other areas of employment than tenured PhD university employment. This seems to distress Donna Shalala and other highly politicised members of the NAS committee.

This topic should enjoy an interesting discussion on the web. I see that Gene Expression blog already has posted on this report. Of course, anyone interested in the underlying science in this issue should read this La Griffe du Lion essay on women in science and this essay on women in mathematics.

This NAS report is an expensive "Ode to Cluelessness." Not so much on the part of the committee members, who clearly know what their own ambitious goals are, as on the part of anyone who takes it seriously.