Article: "Is Google Making Us Stoopid?" from The Atlantic.com

[Kelly Baker]

Regardless of the article's inappropriate title, the author seems to
be missing the nature of how most people read on the internet. IMO,
skimming the internet is much more akin to reading a newspaper than
reading a novel, or an article in a journal - we scan the headlines
looking for something that peaks our interest, and if we find
something, we continue to read. The rest is discarded. It feels like
the author is looking at the issue kind of backwards. Instead of a
short attention span, this method seems to be an efficient way of
sorting through tons of material.

I'll agree that this article is way too long. It easily could have
been edited to one quarter of the length without losing any actual
content. I'm guessing that was on purpose!


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=31358


________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Gloria Petron]

Interesting food for thought.
Best,
Gloria
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Shaun Bergmann]

There's something humorous hidden here.  Either in the fact that there was
no link attached, or in how easy it was to google the referenced article.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google


On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Gloria Petron <gpetron@...> wrote:

> Interesting food for thought.
> Best,
> Gloria
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Gloria Petron]

LOL - sorry about that. :-)
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Oleh Kovalchuke]

The factual intelligence benefits from briefness -- most ideas can be
expressed in few sentences (see Strunk, for example).

The emotional intelligence (as well as closely related BS) is not going to
be influenced by the efficiency of Google.

Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it described, but
emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too wordy, when I
have read it long time ago).

--
Oleh Kovalchuke
Interaction Design is design of time
http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm



On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Shaun Bergmann <shaunbergmann@...>
wrote:

> There's something humorous hidden here.  Either in the fact that there was
> no link attached, or in how easy it was to google the referenced article.
> http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Gloria Petron <gpetron@...> wrote:
>
> > Interesting food for thought.
> > Best,
> > Gloria
>

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Christine Boese]

LOL! I thought it was on purpose, to reinforce the point of the article!

Chris

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Gloria Petron <gpetron@...> wrote:

> LOL - sorry about that. :-)
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Jackie O'Hare]

 
"Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it described,
but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too wordy,
when I have read it long time ago)."
----------------------

I totally agree.  I found myself wondering whether it was done
intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning.  It seemed
a little "meta" in that way.

I also found reading this article online a very interesting experience.
I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you were
reading the print article in the physical magazine.

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Sebi Tauciuc]

Too long for me. Gave up reading up after two paragraphs. Does this prove
the article's point?

Sebi

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <Jackie@...>
wrote:

>
> "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it described,
> but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too wordy,
> when I have read it long time ago)."
> ----------------------
>
> I totally agree.  I found myself wondering whether it was done
> intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
> types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning.  It seemed
> a little "meta" in that way.
>
> I also found reading this article online a very interesting experience.
> I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you were
> reading the print article in the physical magazine.
>
>
>

--
Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Will Evans-3]

There are so many ways in which this article is bad. Bad research, bad
writing, faulty conclusions based on shakey premises. The title alone should
shy people away - it's sensationalistic. First - the author has no ability
to discern the difference between intellect/intelligence and literacy, or
intelligence and focus. This is not merely a matter of semantics. To use the
word 'stupid' implies that google indeed reduces I.Q. yet the author never
discusses intelligence anywhere in the article - he discusses focus, and
literacy. Further, his issue is not with Google qua Google - but with
Hypertext. Very, very different things. A well researched criticism of
hypertext as a medium, and it's effects on cognition would have been
interesting. This was not.

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Sebi Tauciuc <stauciuc@...> wrote:

> Too long for me. Gave up reading up after two paragraphs. Does this prove
> the article's point?
>
> Sebi
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <Jackie@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it described,
> > but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too wordy,
> > when I have read it long time ago)."
> > ----------------------
> >
> > I totally agree.  I found myself wondering whether it was done
> > intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
> > types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning.  It seemed
> > a little "meta" in that way.
> >
> > I also found reading this article online a very interesting experience.
> > I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you were
> > reading the print article in the physical magazine.
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
> http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel [phone] | will@...
twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Christine Boese]

gotta wade through all this thick ironizing here.... do y'all use spray
starch to help make the author's point? LOL.

Chris

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <Jackie@...>
wrote:

>
> "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it described,
> but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too wordy,
> when I have read it long time ago)."
> ----------------------
>
> I totally agree.  I found myself wondering whether it was done
> intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
> types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning.  It seemed
> a little "meta" in that way.
>
> I also found reading this article online a very interesting experience.
> I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you were
> reading the print article in the physical magazine.
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Christine Boese]

Generally, none of those adjectives readily describe Atlantic Monthly
articles (which also regularly hew to a requisite length-- 2,000 to 5,000
words-- I used to submit essays, and have the yellowing rejection slips to
prove it-- of which readers of the New Yorker and Harpers are also
accustomed).

Sensationalistic, bad research, bad writing. I've heard the Atlantic
criticized for being too conservative, too over-researched, too constipated
(that last one comes from me, over the past 20 years), but RARELY would
anyone hear it called "sensationalistic," and this is old school magazine
writing, fact-checked to death over a full month or more. The Atlantic is
known for publishing some of the best writing in the country.

I'm just saying. Putting the Atlantic Monthly in the same category with,
say, a Murdoch publication, begs absurdity.

On the other hand, I may have come across a error in it myself, but it may
be more along the quibble my old journalism prof had with saying a student
"graduated" instead of "was graduated." I take special joy in finding these
things, mostly because my wonderful old prof has passed away, and somebody
ought to still be able to do what he did, quibble, just to keep his memory
alive.

Chris


On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Will Evans <will@...>
wrote:

> There are so many ways in which this article is bad. Bad research, bad
> writing, faulty conclusions based on shakey premises. The title alone
> should
> shy people away - it's sensationalistic. First - the author has no ability
> to discern the difference between intellect/intelligence and literacy, or
> intelligence and focus. This is not merely a matter of semantics. To use
> the
> word 'stupid' implies that google indeed reduces I.Q. yet the author never
> discusses intelligence anywhere in the article - he discusses focus, and
> literacy. Further, his issue is not with Google qua Google - but with
> Hypertext. Very, very different things. A well researched criticism of
> hypertext as a medium, and it's effects on cognition would have been
> interesting. This was not.
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Sebi Tauciuc <stauciuc@...> wrote:
>
> > Too long for me. Gave up reading up after two paragraphs. Does this prove
> > the article's point?
> >
> > Sebi
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <Jackie@...
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it
> described,
> > > but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too
> wordy,
> > > when I have read it long time ago)."
> > > ----------------------
> > >
> > > I totally agree.  I found myself wondering whether it was done
> > > intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
> > > types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning.  It seemed
> > > a little "meta" in that way.
> > >
> > > I also found reading this article online a very interesting experience.
> > > I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you
> were
> > > reading the print article in the physical magazine.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
> > http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ~ will
>
> "Where you innovate, how you innovate,
> and what you innovate are design problems"
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Will Evans | User Experience Architect
> tel [phone] | will@...
> twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Nancy Broden]

This is a great opportunity to work with a tight-knit team on a  
service that is revolutionizing the way people share video with their  
networks. Our service crosses platform, so we are interested in  
talking with interaction designers who have web-only experience but  
are interested in learning more about the mobile space, as well as IDs  
who've worked in mobile and are looking for a chance to broaden their  
experience.

Please submit your resume with a portfolio website to jobs@....  
Candidates are strongly encouraged to have an online portfolio for  
best consideration.

This position is located in Redwood City, CA. Only candidates with  
proper permits to work in the United States can be considered.  
Relocation assistance is available for qualified candidates.

Nancy Broden
Director of User Experience, Qik, Inc.
------------------------------

Job Description
Qik, Inc. is looking for a mid-level interaction designer to join its  
User Experience team on a permanent, full-time basis. The interaction  
designer should have a strong understanding of the user-centered  
design process and be comfortable working independently alongside  
design and engineering team members. The ideal candidate should have  
2-3 years of experience designing interfaces for the web and/or mobile  
and feel comfortable in a fast-paced startup environment.

About Qik
Qik (http://qik.com) enables camera-equipped mobile phones to stream  
live video to the world via 3G, GPRS and Wi-Fi networks. Qik is  
changing the way people communicate and interact with others by  
letting them share what they see and interact with friends, family or  
a broader audience in real-time.

Qik is a well-funded startup offering competitive compensation  
packages and great benefits. We are located steps from the Caltrain  
station in Redwood City, 30 minutes from San Francisco and San Jose by  
bullet train. Our office is around the corner from outstanding live  
music at the Fox and Little Fox Theatres, across the street from free  
entertainment in Courthouse Square, and surrounded by a wide array of  
restaurants. If you are excited at the thought of designing a new way  
for people create and share experiences with others, we’d like to  
speak with you!

Responsibilities include:
- performing heuristic audits
- developing conceptual models, personas, scenarios and storyboards
- defining user task and interaction flows
- creating screen- and page-level interaction designs
- writing user interface specifications that capture proposed designs  
in details
- working with a multi-disciplinary team to evaluate the feasibility  
of proposed solutions.

Required qualifications:
- strong understanding and demonstrable experience of user-centered  
design process
- 2+ years designing effective interfaces for mobile applications and/
or consumer facing web-based applications
- undergraduate degree in relevant field and/or equivalent work  
experience
- ability to communicate conceptual ideas and design rationale to  
other members of the design, development and executive team
- working experience with appropriate design tools including  
OmniGraffle, Adobe CS, etc. as they relate to documenting interface  
flows and screen- or page-level features and functionality
- focused attention to detail
- sense of humor and positive, flexible attitude
- ability to multi-task and work on competing tasks with tight timelines
- strong interpersonal, communication and problem-solving skills
- comfortable working in a fast-paced, dynamic startup environment

Desired qualifications:
- prefer candidates with previous experience in an agency setting and/
or OEM/wireless carrier background
- domain experience in relevant technologies (J2ME, WAP) and platforms  
(J2ME, Symbian, MS, iPhone, Blackberry)
advanced degree in relevant field
-------------------


________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Lada Gorlenko]

> I'll agree that this article is way too long. It easily could have
> been edited to one quarter of the length without losing any actual
> content. I'm guessing that was on purpose!

Short articles typically aim at PROVIDING INFORMATION; long articles
often try to MAKE THE READER THINK. Atlantic is well-known for it's
thought-provoking publications. If the article didn't deliver the
thinking part, there is a slight chance that the author is right :-)

Lada

 
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Will Evans-3]

True -

But did the writer ever answer or even deal with the title - Does Google
make people stupid? What I meant by sensationalistic is that he/editor
intentionally choose google to grab readers even if the article had nothing
to do with Google search making people cognitively impaired. The article had
to do with the nature of hypertext, which I know you know - has been well
researched.

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Christine Boese <christine.boese@...>
wrote:

> Generally, none of those adjectives readily describe Atlantic Monthly
> articles (which also regularly hew to a requisite length-- 2,000 to 5,000
> words-- I used to submit essays, and have the yellowing rejection slips to
> prove it-- of which readers of the New Yorker and Harpers are also
> accustomed).
>
> Sensationalistic, bad research, bad writing. I've heard the Atlantic
> criticized for being too conservative, too over-researched, too constipated
> (that last one comes from me, over the past 20 years), but RARELY would
> anyone hear it called "sensationalistic," and this is old school magazine
> writing, fact-checked to death over a full month or more. The Atlantic is
> known for publishing some of the best writing in the country.
>
> I'm just saying. Putting the Atlantic Monthly in the same category with,
> say, a Murdoch publication, begs absurdity.
>
> On the other hand, I may have come across a error in it myself, but it may
> be more along the quibble my old journalism prof had with saying a student
> "graduated" instead of "was graduated." I take special joy in finding these
> things, mostly because my wonderful old prof has passed away, and somebody
> ought to still be able to do what he did, quibble, just to keep his memory
> alive.
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Will Evans <will@...>
> wrote:
>
> > There are so many ways in which this article is bad. Bad research, bad
> > writing, faulty conclusions based on shakey premises. The title alone
> > should
> > shy people away - it's sensationalistic. First - the author has no
> ability
> > to discern the difference between intellect/intelligence and literacy, or
> > intelligence and focus. This is not merely a matter of semantics. To use
> > the
> > word 'stupid' implies that google indeed reduces I.Q. yet the author
> never
> > discusses intelligence anywhere in the article - he discusses focus, and
> > literacy. Further, his issue is not with Google qua Google - but with
> > Hypertext. Very, very different things. A well researched criticism of
> > hypertext as a medium, and it's effects on cognition would have been
> > interesting. This was not.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Sebi Tauciuc <stauciuc@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Too long for me. Gave up reading up after two paragraphs. Does this
> prove
> > > the article's point?
> > >
> > > Sebi
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <
> Jackie@...
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it
> > described,
> > > > but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too
> > wordy,
> > > > when I have read it long time ago)."
> > > > ----------------------
> > > >
> > > > I totally agree.  I found myself wondering whether it was done
> > > > intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
> > > > types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning.  It
> seemed
> > > > a little "meta" in that way.
> > > >
> > > > I also found reading this article online a very interesting
> experience.
> > > > I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you
> > were
> > > > reading the print article in the physical magazine.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
> > > http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > > To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> > > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> > > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> > > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~ will
> >
> > "Where you innovate, how you innovate,
> > and what you innovate are design problems"
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Will Evans | User Experience Architect
> > tel [phone] | will@...
> > twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
> >
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel [phone] | will@...
twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Christine Boese]

I was struck just the other day by a Marshall McLuhan quotation I hadn't
looked at in a good long while. It really shocked me out of my perspective,
sort of a revisioning, or perhaps, McLuhan might say, with time, I began to
recognize the pattern in the media reversal.

It was his famous bit about the global village in Gutenberg Galaxy.
Understanding Media is always fresher in my head, but like I said, a new
perspective, something I was reading in wikipedia, put it to me in another
way, not highlighting the interconnectedness of the global village, but
rather it's TRIBAL nature, particularly McLuhan's warning (yes, warning)
against FEAR as part and parcel of tribal-ness.

Namely, I got a dose of post-9/11 McLuhan, which I'd actually read some
years before. McLuhan didn't think the global village was such a good thing.
Sort of in the Ong sense, he did think it dumbed a culture down, even if he
was a big bad old technological determinist.

So McLuhan, in his riff on media being the message/massage, made the point
it doesn't matter what [Google] says/does, the message is irrelevant. The
message OF THE MEDIA is go tribal, go stupid. So you could watch PBS 24/7,
McLuhan would argue, and the predominant message you would get is go tribal,
go stupid, live in tribal fear.

Now how's that for some provocative food for thought?

Chris

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Will Evans <will@...>
wrote:

> True -
>
> But did the writer ever answer or even deal with the title - Does Google
> make people stupid? What I meant by sensationalistic is that he/editor
> intentionally choose google to grab readers even if the article had nothing
> to do with Google search making people cognitively impaired. The article had
> to do with the nature of hypertext, which I know you know - has been well
> researched.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Christine Boese <
> christine.boese@...> wrote:
>
>> Generally, none of those adjectives readily describe Atlantic Monthly
>> articles (which also regularly hew to a requisite length-- 2,000 to 5,000
>> words-- I used to submit essays, and have the yellowing rejection slips to
>> prove it-- of which readers of the New Yorker and Harpers are also
>> accustomed).
>>
>> Sensationalistic, bad research, bad writing. I've heard the Atlantic
>> criticized for being too conservative, too over-researched, too
>> constipated
>> (that last one comes from me, over the past 20 years), but RARELY would
>> anyone hear it called "sensationalistic," and this is old school magazine
>> writing, fact-checked to death over a full month or more. The Atlantic is
>> known for publishing some of the best writing in the country.
>>
>> I'm just saying. Putting the Atlantic Monthly in the same category with,
>> say, a Murdoch publication, begs absurdity.
>>
>> On the other hand, I may have come across a error in it myself, but it may
>> be more along the quibble my old journalism prof had with saying a student
>> "graduated" instead of "was graduated." I take special joy in finding
>> these
>> things, mostly because my wonderful old prof has passed away, and somebody
>> ought to still be able to do what he did, quibble, just to keep his memory
>> alive.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Will Evans <will@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > There are so many ways in which this article is bad. Bad research, bad
>> > writing, faulty conclusions based on shakey premises. The title alone
>> > should
>> > shy people away - it's sensationalistic. First - the author has no
>> ability
>> > to discern the difference between intellect/intelligence and literacy,
>> or
>> > intelligence and focus. This is not merely a matter of semantics. To use
>> > the
>> > word 'stupid' implies that google indeed reduces I.Q. yet the author
>> never
>> > discusses intelligence anywhere in the article - he discusses focus, and
>> > literacy. Further, his issue is not with Google qua Google - but with
>> > Hypertext. Very, very different things. A well researched criticism of
>> > hypertext as a medium, and it's effects on cognition would have been
>> > interesting. This was not.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Sebi Tauciuc <stauciuc@...>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Too long for me. Gave up reading up after two paragraphs. Does this
>> prove
>> > > the article's point?
>> > >
>> > > Sebi
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <
>> Jackie@...
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it
>> > described,
>> > > > but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too
>> > wordy,
>> > > > when I have read it long time ago)."
>> > > > ----------------------
>> > > >
>> > > > I totally agree.  I found myself wondering whether it was done
>> > > > intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of the
>> > > > types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning.  It
>> seemed
>> > > > a little "meta" in that way.
>> > > >
>> > > > I also found reading this article online a very interesting
>> experience.
>> > > > I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if you
>> > were
>> > > > reading the print article in the physical magazine.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > --
>> > > Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
>> > > http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
>> > > ________________________________________________________________
>> > > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> > > To post to this list ....... discuss@...
>> > > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> > > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> > > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ~ will
>> >
>> > "Where you innovate, how you innovate,
>> > and what you innovate are design problems"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Will Evans | User Experience Architect
>> > tel [phone] | will@...
>> > twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > ________________________________________________________________
>> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> > To post to this list ....... discuss@...
>> > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>> >
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
>> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
>> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
>> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
>> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ~ will
>
> "Where you innovate, how you innovate,
> and what you innovate are design problems"
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Will Evans | User Experience Architect
> tel [phone] | will@...
> twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Will Evans-3]

We have already gone/been tribal. Look at your twitter connections - that is
your tribe. And the tribes boundries is the map without a territory because
it exists in Eco's hyperreality.

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Christine Boese <christine.boese@...>
wrote:

> I was struck just the other day by a Marshall McLuhan quotation I hadn't
> looked at in a good long while. It really shocked me out of my perspective,
> sort of a revisioning, or perhaps, McLuhan might say, with time, I began to
> recognize the pattern in the media reversal.
>
> It was his famous bit about the global village in Gutenberg Galaxy.
> Understanding Media is always fresher in my head, but like I said, a new
> perspective, something I was reading in wikipedia, put it to me in another
> way, not highlighting the interconnectedness of the global village, but
> rather it's TRIBAL nature, particularly McLuhan's warning (yes, warning)
> against FEAR as part and parcel of tribal-ness.
>
> Namely, I got a dose of post-9/11 McLuhan, which I'd actually read some
> years before. McLuhan didn't think the global village was such a good
> thing.
> Sort of in the Ong sense, he did think it dumbed a culture down, even if he
> was a big bad old technological determinist.
>
> So McLuhan, in his riff on media being the message/massage, made the point
> it doesn't matter what [Google] says/does, the message is irrelevant. The
> message OF THE MEDIA is go tribal, go stupid. So you could watch PBS 24/7,
> McLuhan would argue, and the predominant message you would get is go
> tribal,
> go stupid, live in tribal fear.
>
> Now how's that for some provocative food for thought?
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Will Evans <will@...>
> wrote:
>
> > True -
> >
> > But did the writer ever answer or even deal with the title - Does Google
> > make people stupid? What I meant by sensationalistic is that he/editor
> > intentionally choose google to grab readers even if the article had
> nothing
> > to do with Google search making people cognitively impaired. The article
> had
> > to do with the nature of hypertext, which I know you know - has been well
> > researched.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Christine Boese <
> > christine.boese@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Generally, none of those adjectives readily describe Atlantic Monthly
> >> articles (which also regularly hew to a requisite length-- 2,000 to
> 5,000
> >> words-- I used to submit essays, and have the yellowing rejection slips
> to
> >> prove it-- of which readers of the New Yorker and Harpers are also
> >> accustomed).
> >>
> >> Sensationalistic, bad research, bad writing. I've heard the Atlantic
> >> criticized for being too conservative, too over-researched, too
> >> constipated
> >> (that last one comes from me, over the past 20 years), but RARELY would
> >> anyone hear it called "sensationalistic," and this is old school
> magazine
> >> writing, fact-checked to death over a full month or more. The Atlantic
> is
> >> known for publishing some of the best writing in the country.
> >>
> >> I'm just saying. Putting the Atlantic Monthly in the same category with,
> >> say, a Murdoch publication, begs absurdity.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, I may have come across a error in it myself, but it
> may
> >> be more along the quibble my old journalism prof had with saying a
> student
> >> "graduated" instead of "was graduated." I take special joy in finding
> >> these
> >> things, mostly because my wonderful old prof has passed away, and
> somebody
> >> ought to still be able to do what he did, quibble, just to keep his
> memory
> >> alive.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Will Evans <will@...>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > There are so many ways in which this article is bad. Bad research, bad
> >> > writing, faulty conclusions based on shakey premises. The title alone
> >> > should
> >> > shy people away - it's sensationalistic. First - the author has no
> >> ability
> >> > to discern the difference between intellect/intelligence and literacy,
> >> or
> >> > intelligence and focus. This is not merely a matter of semantics. To
> use
> >> > the
> >> > word 'stupid' implies that google indeed reduces I.Q. yet the author
> >> never
> >> > discusses intelligence anywhere in the article - he discusses focus,
> and
> >> > literacy. Further, his issue is not with Google qua Google - but with
> >> > Hypertext. Very, very different things. A well researched criticism of
> >> > hypertext as a medium, and it's effects on cognition would have been
> >> > interesting. This was not.
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Sebi Tauciuc <stauciuc@...>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Too long for me. Gave up reading up after two paragraphs. Does this
> >> prove
> >> > > the article's point?
> >> > >
> >> > > Sebi
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare <
> >> Jackie@...
> >> > >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it
> >> > described,
> >> > > > but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too
> >> > wordy,
> >> > > > when I have read it long time ago)."
> >> > > > ----------------------
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I totally agree.  I found myself wondering whether it was done
> >> > > > intentionally - as though the author was providing an example of
> the
> >> > > > types of articles that we are inclined to glean for meaning.  It
> >> seemed
> >> > > > a little "meta" in that way.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I also found reading this article online a very interesting
> >> experience.
> >> > > > I wonder how the experience of reading it would be different if
> you
> >> > were
> >> > > > reading the print article in the physical magazine.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Sergiu Sebastian Tauciuc
> >> > > http://www.sergiutauciuc.ro/en/
> >> > > ________________________________________________________________
> >> > > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> >> > > To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> >> > > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> >> > > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> >> > > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > ~ will
> >> >
> >> > "Where you innovate, how you innovate,
> >> > and what you innovate are design problems"
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > Will Evans | User Experience Architect
> >> > tel [phone] | will@...
> >> > twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > ________________________________________________________________
> >> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> >> > To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> >> > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> >> > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> >> > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
> >> >
> >> ________________________________________________________________
> >> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> >> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> >> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> >> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> >> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~ will
> >
> > "Where you innovate, how you innovate,
> > and what you innovate are design problems"
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Will Evans | User Experience Architect
> > tel [phone] | will@...
> > twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss@...
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
~ will

"Where you innovate, how you innovate,
and what you innovate are design problems"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Evans | User Experience Architect
tel [phone] | will@...
twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Jeremy White-7]

Maybe the author and her friends are just getting old and senile.
;-)


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=31358


________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Benjamin Ho]

I just read the article - albeit all online, I did have to
concentrate. ;)  It's actually pretty well done and not that wordy -
reading something from Bucky Fuller is more wordy.

Instead of the catchy title naming Google, the author should have
called it, "Is the Internet making us stupid?"

I find it's an interesting discussion about how our brains are being
repurposed by the type of media being read and mechanics used to
create the medium.  It seems like there's some light research done
to it - if it were any heavier, it wouldn't be readable and make my
mind check-out.

The premise seems to be based around the idea of "chunking" which
is familiar to us in usability.  Chunking also means scanning instead
of reading.  And for the Industrial Revolution, the idea of chunking
means systems can be built into something manageable and in
sequences.

As for Google's ambitions, I don't there could ever come to a point
where there will be a perfect search engine.  While Google is quite
good, it still takes quite a bit of work to do a proper search,
especially when new content is being formed all the time and if
you're looking for something particularly obscure and new, it will
indeed take longer to find it.

I think the human mind is faster than the Internet.  Humans created
it - not the other way around.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=31358


________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Benjamin Ho]

Oleh,

Think of it this way - it's the human doing the searching, not the
Internet. ;)

Search results are only as good as what's pertinent to the human.
The Internet can give you poor results, especially if the algorithm
isn't correct.  It's the human mind that becomes adaptive and
thinks faster to modify certain keywords to perform the search.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=31358


________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

[Oleh Kovalchuke]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Benjamin Ho <benoh2@...> wrote:


> I think the human mind is faster than the Internet.  Humans created
> it - not the other way around.


This reasoning contradicts both theory (systems), and facts (you do use
Google to find that site you saw a few weeks ago, don't you?), therefore it
is most probably false.


> --
> Oleh Kovalchuke
> Interaction Design is design of time
> http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm
>
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss@...
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help