Is the internet giving us "Pond-skater" minds?
Andrew Sullivan has an interesting piece in today's Sunday Times News Review about the possibility that spending large amounts of time on the internet can have an impact on the way we think. It's called "Google is giving us pond skater minds."
The advantage is that we can get hold of vast amounts of data very quickly - at least, it's an advantage if we think to check that the data is actually accurate. (See my post a couple of weeks ago about the Red Arrows myth.)
Sullivan argues that the potential disadvantage is that we can find ourselves flitting from issue to issue without devoting serious thought to any one. He argues that this would be a probem if we become, for instance, to used to a rapid flow of a wide ranging stream of information that we cannot summon the concentration to read a book.
Certainly that is possible. So as a check of how vulnerable to this I've become I thought I would check my book consumption over the first six months of this year.
The total number of books I've acquired since January is not susceptible to a quick count because Whitehaven Library has for space reasons been selling off large numbers of books in excellent condition for 10p a time and I have bought large numbers of them which I have not yet had time to read. I have also bought books from local and national booksellers such as Michael Moon, WH Smith, and from the internet.
But a quick check of my internet purchases against what I've so far read, and a look round the shelves, suggest that I have managed to read at least 29 books so far this year - that's cover to cover, not counting the ones I have just dipped into. Judging by Amazon's sales figures and the number of people I see im bookshops, other people have not stopped reading books yet, either.
So I suspect Andrew Sullivan's prediction of the demise of our concentration span is a little premature. But he's undoubtedly right that for good or ill, a huge extra supply of quick information, some accurate, some rubbish, and all stations in between, is bound to change the way we think.
The advantage is that we can get hold of vast amounts of data very quickly - at least, it's an advantage if we think to check that the data is actually accurate. (See my post a couple of weeks ago about the Red Arrows myth.)
Sullivan argues that the potential disadvantage is that we can find ourselves flitting from issue to issue without devoting serious thought to any one. He argues that this would be a probem if we become, for instance, to used to a rapid flow of a wide ranging stream of information that we cannot summon the concentration to read a book.
Certainly that is possible. So as a check of how vulnerable to this I've become I thought I would check my book consumption over the first six months of this year.
The total number of books I've acquired since January is not susceptible to a quick count because Whitehaven Library has for space reasons been selling off large numbers of books in excellent condition for 10p a time and I have bought large numbers of them which I have not yet had time to read. I have also bought books from local and national booksellers such as Michael Moon, WH Smith, and from the internet.
But a quick check of my internet purchases against what I've so far read, and a look round the shelves, suggest that I have managed to read at least 29 books so far this year - that's cover to cover, not counting the ones I have just dipped into. Judging by Amazon's sales figures and the number of people I see im bookshops, other people have not stopped reading books yet, either.
So I suspect Andrew Sullivan's prediction of the demise of our concentration span is a little premature. But he's undoubtedly right that for good or ill, a huge extra supply of quick information, some accurate, some rubbish, and all stations in between, is bound to change the way we think.
Comments