The Internet: Do the Pros Outweigh the Cons

[Fuhgeddaboudit]

I'm reading a book by Nicholas Carr called The Shallows for my Social Informatics course. This is just the beginning, but I'd love to get some insight and discussion on the internet here, especially since we are using the Internet right now as we speak in some way or form.

 

Do the Pros of the Internet outweigh the Cons of the Internet and its' relationship to human beings?

 

Some Pros and Cons I can think about right now:

 

Pros: Quick research and very reliable for getting new information. Easy way to broadcast yourself/network.

Cons: Losing "old-fashioned" research ways such as reading a full-length book in its entirety, exposure to what you may call "BS".

[quick release]

Yes. By far. It's human evolution on speed. But only time will really tell if that's a good thing.

[Fuhgeddaboudit]

Yes. By far. It's human evolution on speed. But only time will really tell if that's a good thing.

 

I am thinking about my college courses as an example. I always feel rushed to do papers or study and such. I feel like maybe professors know how much technology gives us so they expect us to do things faster? I wonder how universities were back then when you had to go and read books to write papers and such. Wonder if it was a larger paper that was due for one course and nothing else, unlike how we have plenty of papers due in one course during one semester.

 

This kind of gives us a notion to rush and skim numerous texts to pull out the "right" information?

[NYRangers92]

I believe the current placement of this thread right above the Hot Chicks thread should answer this question

[Patrick Bateman]

I am thinking about my college courses as an example. I always feel rushed to do papers or study and such. I feel like maybe professors know how much technology gives us so they expect us to do things faster? I wonder how universities were back then when you had to go and read books to write papers and such. Wonder if it was a larger paper that was due for one course and nothing else, unlike how we have plenty of papers due in one course during one semester.

 

This kind of gives us a notion to rush and skim numerous texts to pull out the "right" information?

That's a good thing

[Fuhgeddaboudit]

That's a good thing

 

That's what I said. But this author supposedly makes claims that it's not a good thing. I'm assuming later on in the book, he starts discussing how we tend to skip over other details and we don't get the overall picture.

[josh]

Pro.

 

Idiots will be idiots, but for those who utilize the tools in front of them, the Internet is one of the best technologies out there.

[Parsley]

2 words: FREE PORN :rolleyes:

[Dave]

That's what I said. But this author supposedly makes claims that it's not a good thing. I'm assuming later on in the book, he starts discussing how we tend to skip over other details and we don't get the overall picture.

 

I'd imagine we are changing our decision making process from gaining and storing in depth knowledge on specific topics to a more generalized knowledge that allows us to use the internet to get the detailed information we need on demand in order to answer more specific questions. A con might be dependence on a vast, and quickly available information set to make decisions.

 

We tackle problems with a more clustered approach. Rather than trying to get the right answer the first time, it's now easier and probably more successful to find multiple probable answers quickly and then select the right one by comparing them. So this would be a pro, imo.

[Fuhgeddaboudit]

I'd imagine we are changing our decision making process from gaining and storing in depth knowledge on specific topics to a more generalized knowledge that allows us to use the internet to get the detailed information we need on demand in order to answer more specific questions. A con might be dependence on a vast, and quickly available information set to make decisions.

 

We tackle problems with a more clustered approach. Rather than trying to get the right answer the first time, it's now easier and probably more successful to find multiple probable answers quickly and then select the right one by comparing them. So this would be a pro, imo.

 

In terms of pulling information (answers), what I'm worried about are the vast amount of writings/articles/information on the Internet for writing a paper or doing a research.

 

Let's say you're doing a paper on genetics. I know it might be common sense to research and pick out information from the famous scientists who studied genetics and such, but I really wonder how cluttered the Internet will be with all independent writers who might touch upon the subject of genetics. At what point do these bloggers or authors become reliable information for a research paper in the future?

[Dave]

In terms of pulling information (answers), what I'm worried about are the vast amount of writings/articles/information on the Internet for writing a paper or doing a research.

 

Let's say you're doing a paper on genetics. I know it might be common sense to research and pick out information from the famous scientists who studied genetics and such, but I really wonder how cluttered the Internet will be with all independent writers who might touch upon the subject of genetics. At what point do these bloggers or authors become reliable information for a research paper in the future?

 

So that's kind of a pro and a con. Price of admission (cost of publishing a book) filters out information that is less valuable, however, that value is determined by marketability. Less marketable information, but still valuable from an education standpoint, was kept out of the public domain in the past. The downside is that with no toll to pay to get information out, there is that flood you were talking about.

 

I think we are getting better at evaluating information's value and discovering new ways to determine viability, like quick cross referencing. Still, we are left open to clever hoaxes and popular, but inaccurate information.

[Dave]

One thing that this thread illuminates is the ability to bounce your ideas off of many real, live, thinking people and to get their feedback at their and your own convenience. That's a much trickier thing to do in real life.

[Fuhgeddaboudit]

So that's kind of a pro and a con. Price of admission (cost of publishing a book) filters out information that is less valuable, however, that value is determined by marketability. Less marketable information, but still valuable from an education standpoint, was kept out of the public domain in the past. The downside is that with no toll to pay to get information out, there is that flood you were talking about.

 

I think we are getting better at evaluating information's value and discovering new ways to determine viability, like quick cross referencing. Still, we are left open to clever hoaxes and popular, but inaccurate information.

 

Cross-referencing also leads to multi-tasking, no? Constantly switching back and forth between various references. I know people claim they can multi-task, but there have been studies that say the brain acts so differently when multi-tasking and the results prove that people cannot multi-task at all. That is scary because people can cross reference a lot of info, and not take the deep meaning/information completely although they will continue to do it anyway.

[Morphinity 2.0]

In terms of pulling information (answers), what I'm worried about are the vast amount of writings/articles/information on the Internet for writing a paper or doing a research.

 

Let's say you're doing a paper on genetics. I know it might be common sense to research and pick out information from the famous scientists who studied genetics and such, but I really wonder how cluttered the Internet will be with all independent writers who might touch upon the subject of genetics. At what point do these bloggers or authors become reliable information for a research paper in the future?

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here. When writing a research paper, you look for academic sources, accredited authors, and experiment results from research institutions or field data.

[Dave]

Cross-referencing also leads to multi-tasking, no? Constantly switching back and forth between various references. I know people claim they can multi-task, but there have been studies that say the brain acts so differently when multi-tasking and the results prove that people cannot multi-task at all. That is scary because people can cross reference a lot of info, and not take the deep meaning/information completely although they will continue to do it anyway.

 

Which gets at the heart of the debate, really. Some situations require information that is more indepth than most people get from their own research online, while other situations vastly benefit from the increased speed and availability of more general or incomplete information on the internet.

 

Let me give you a couple of examples for each:

 

1. Open Heart Surgery = Internet Research BAD!

2. Fixing a leaky faucet = Internet Research GOOD!

3. Learning to drive a car = Internet Research BAD!

4. Learning how to best use your new digital camera = Internet Research GOOD!

5. Helping a friend deal with a tramatic loss = Internet Research BAD!

6. Helping a friend find a date = Internet Research GOOD!

 

The complexity and accuracy needed to complete the process you're learning about as well as the damage possible from incorrectly applying the knowledge you gather factor into whether the Internet is a good or bad tool for learning.

[Fuhgeddaboudit]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. When writing a research paper, you look for academic sources, accredited authors, and experiment results from research institutions or field data.

 

Yes, of course. But with the continuous clutter of the internet, schools need to teach effective researching probably even earlier than they do now.

[Dave]

Yes, of course. But with the continuous clutter of the internet, schools need to teach effective researching probably even earlier than they do now.

 

Schools need to embrace the new reality as far as information sharing is concerned and learn to adapt education to make the most of it, while minimizing it's draw backs, imo. They need to teach students how to use skepticism to evaluate sources.

[Fuhgeddaboudit]

Schools need to embrace the new reality as far as information sharing is concerned and learn to adapt education to make the most of it, while minimizing it's draw backs, imo. They need to teach students how to use skepticism to evaluate sources.

 

I believe it was around sophomore year of high school that I started using a program (whatever we can call it) called Jstor and it made it easier to find numerous articles and stuff on something we typed into the search bar. I was in higher education at my school, but when I got to Baruch College, I realized a lot of people didn't even know how to cite, research, or even write a research paper.

[Fuhgeddaboudit]

Just an interesting quotation by Cory Doctorow:

 

There's a lot of thoughtfulness and smarts that went into the design(the iPad). But there's also a palpable contempt for the owner. Buying an iPad for your kids isn't a means of jump-starting the realization that the world is yours to take apart and reassemble; it's a way of telling your offspring that even changing the batteries is something you have to leave to the professionals.

[Jules]

Yes, of course. But with the continuous clutter of the internet, schools need to teach effective researching probably even earlier than they do now.

 

If you are a scholar or a student and you can't define a good source from a bad one, you have chosen the wrong profession. It should be pretty clear to someone who is at least somewhat familiar to a subject whether something is bullshit or not.

[Fuhgeddaboudit]

If you are a scholar or a student and you can't define a good source from a bad one, you have chosen the wrong profession. It should be pretty clear to someone who is at least somewhat familiar to a subject whether something is bullshit or not.

 

The way the older generations look it now, sure. But technology advancement is swift, so hopefully the education smoothly runs parallel to it so the younger generation is prepared.

[momentum]

I am thinking about my college courses as an example. I always feel rushed to do papers or study and such. I feel like maybe professors know how much technology gives us so they expect us to do things faster? I wonder how universities were back then when you had to go and read books to write papers and such. Wonder if it was a larger paper that was due for one course and nothing else, unlike how we have plenty of papers due in one course during one semester.

 

This kind of gives us a notion to rush and skim numerous texts to pull out the "right" information?

 

It was tons of papers due then too believe me, ppl today have it much easier.

[Fuhgeddaboudit]

It was tons of papers due then too believe me, ppl today have it much easier.

 

Yeah, I asked my professor. Seems like that was the case, damn.