Stephen,

Yes, I think we need to unpack the terms of education, effectiveness, knowledge and intelligence.

I often tell individuals who have problems learning or want to open many more doors – in terms of education, “just Google it”.

I’ve personally made it a point to show anyone willing to listen how important and efficient the Google tool is.

Lastly, as technology advances and we all become accustom to new and improved things, i truly believe that the Google system will be looked at as one of the single most important invention of lifetime; no more are we at a disadvantage to persons that are faithful library go – getters, nor are we susceptible to NOT knowing interesting facts or important educational items and topics.

it does not matter if you are Black, White , Hispanic… WE ALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO NOT SETTLE FOR LESS AND NOT PERPETUATE IGNORANCE. THE CREATION OF GOGGLE IS MOST IMPORTANT TO HUMAN EVOLUTION.

– Terrell, Los Angeles

For things that Google does not know (new technology, culture etc.) we actually educate Google. In fact, we are the teachers of Google, in the process enabling Google (or even Wiki in a certain sense) to be a teacher of others seeking similar knowledge.

I for one gains a lot of knowledge from Google and Net-related stuff, but for Google to be smarter, it gets from the Human Mind, and back to the Human Mind. It’s 2 way, really.

However, I agree wholeheartedly with your following position in the comments:

“We are about to make the next big switch. Billions of people on earth will stampede to join. Something will certainly be lost. It would serve us all better if that lost was better defined, and it was paired with a better defined sense of what we gain.”

Brilliant.

My full response (to the whole debate), entitled Fearing Digital Literacy, can be found here.

At more affluent schools/school districts (private/suburban) policy leans toward discouraging computers in the curriculum and classroom, while the less affluent (typically urban)seek, sometimes desperately, necessary funding for computers in the classroom and curriculum.

The basis for the contrast is in the respective presumptions, both of which may be partially correct: among the former, that computers are ubiqitous in homes and so there is something to be gained in emphasizing traditional cognitive tools and learning aids, while at the later it is understood that school is the only place many children might have the opportunity get with “the big switch” from early on.

In the previous generation, in the UK and in Ireland for example, recitation remained emphasized in the curriculum long after it had disappeared from the standard U.S. curriculum.
Recitation, of course, required memorization and hearkened back to the oral heritage. The combination of reading, writing, and recitation made for a very different average outcome, though I can only say so based on my limited personal and anecdotal experience.

I suspect that the difference could be measured (and maybe it has been) and that the difference is based on the cultural commitment expressed in policy that values the reinforcing role that memorization plays among all three. As only one example, if you do a little writing now and then you are much aware of how powerful it is in stregthening the power of recall. If you do a lot of writing, you begin to take that power for granted. And if you do no writing at all . . .

In the future, perhaps curricula will evolve wherein “long span” reading and the critical thinking skills that (might) be especially attached to it will be reinforced to the extent that it is valued in a culture or community.

The peril is that such policy in practice would become the privileged prerogative or domain of an upper class which has co-opted the cognitive class for its purpose. It certainly wouldn’t be an outcome without historical precedent. In this particular worst case scenario, the least advantaged would not be “in on” the big switch nor would they have admission to what will have become gentrified “book reading and thinking” either.

Love the irony of the title… 😉

Free and cheap. As accessible as water.

I taught myself software engineering over the Net in the 90s and built a career – and I have a GED and was fighting from a childhood of poverty and homelessness at the time.

Consider that in general – the American population is no greater informed about the world about them, or even their own country. Countless survey after survey bares this out. In general – we are deaf, dumb and blind to the world around us – and increasingly – our own towns.

This with blog after blog, community after community, social network after social network, available to us to provide us access to news and information.

This goes far beyond Google.

Tom Buckner above bares out my experience for the most part – for the entire Net.

While I think it a bit unfortunate that Nick Carr’s article took the tone it did – we need a more grounded take on social software and how it both empowers us and can draw us towards ends that are not so optimal for ourselves or our communities.

And while you both agree about that discussion, a similar discussion took forth after the publishing of David Shenk’s “Data Smog”. That book has borne itself out as prophetic. The solutions it subscribed at the end – not so much.

So here we are.

Will writers such as you both decide to de-hype your writing “Google is making us dumber” – “No Google is making us Smarter” – “I can feel my brain size increasing!!!!!” to help those that follow or will you both be examples of our time – and write sensationalist headlines to gather eyeballs and page impressions?

No fun in that is there?

Good post and question. Thanks again. Good to see you are so actively blogging last 12 months !

My 2 cents:
– Intelligence is the general flexibility of the mind, to adapt to our environment and its tasks. To discern similarities and differences within a specific knowledge domain. In my view books and long articles are relatively more effective in the above discernment. The depth of case studies in books give a deeper understanding of contextual and process information on top of the content itself. In short web based posts, there seems to be the risk of neglecting or ignoring important contextual and process details. As a result, shallow generalization with a knowledge domain might be the results. In my view in the above sense Google might make us ‘dumber’.

– There are 8 different forms of intelligence (Howard Gardner), Google seems to effective in the left-brain cognitive forms of intelligence (language, math, etc.) neglecting some other key forms of intelligence.

– There is a distinction between data, information, knowledge and wisdom. Google makes us ‘smarter’ in the sense of data and information. For knowledge (with an experience component in it, see tacit knowledge) and wisdom it doesn’t seem to make a difference in my view, it might even make us ‘dumber’ as there is less time to experience life and reflective time for developing wisdom. It reminds me of the great movie Good Will Hunting in which Robin Williams explains to Matt Damon that wisdom is a result of living life instead of reading books or articles.

And I do agree with some other comments below. E.g., basic intelligence is still key (nature and nurture).

Google has made it more convenient, and more efficient to fine more stuff, but it ain’t the only way….PLease tell me I’m not the only one who makes a regular pilgrimage to my local library?!?