
Nobel Laureate Says The Internet Makes Us Dumb - nickb
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/09/nobel-laureate-says-the-internet-makes-us-dumb-we-say-meh/
======
rms
Her speech is not anti-internet; it is pro-literature. The one egregious line
Techcrunch quotes was supposed to be funny.

This paragraph is the real point she makes about the internet.

>What has happened to us is an amazing invention - computers and the internet
and TV. It is a revolution. This is not the first revolution the human race
has dealt with. The printing revolution, which did not take place in a matter
of a few decades, but took much longer, transformed our minds and ways of
thinking. A foolhardy lot, we accepted it all, as we always do, never asked:
"What is going to happen to us now, with this invention of print?" In the same
way, we never thought to ask, "How will our lives, our way of thinking, be
changed by the internet, which has seduced a whole generation with its
inanities so that even quite reasonable people will confess that, once they
are hooked, it is hard to cut free, and they may find a whole day has passed
in blogging etc?"

~~~
vitaminj
I would contend that the subset of people who would actually read literature
were it not for the internet is minuscule. I'm sure that in the absence of the
internet, most people would find equally inane things to do rather than read
literature.

~~~
BrandonM
Like watching season 4 of _The Girls Next Door_?

------
pg
I don't think so. I find writing for a web audience makes me work harder. I
know I'll get busted quickly and publicly if I say something mistaken. And I
also know that I have to work harder to keep people's attention than I would
in print, because they have a lot of other options a click away.

When you're writing an article for _The New Yorker_ , you can give it a self-
indulgently artsy title and begin with a few paragraphs of clever run-up. On
the web you have to call things what they are and get straight to the point.

Also, more people get to publish online. Everyone who wants to publishes, and
the good stuff floats to the top. In the old model, only people who pleased
editors got to publish. That excluded a lot of people who had interesting
things to say.

------
streblo
As a computer science major, I've learned more of the material for my
coursework on the internet than from the actual class. Maybe that says
something about the course, maybe that says something about the nature of the
major, but either way, I'm not disconnecting.

------
almost
Not just a Nobel Laureate, this is Dorris Lessing we're talking about here. I
truly great writer who is still writing with a clarity we can all be envious
of at the age of 89. The full article is really worth reading:
<http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2223780,00.html> Techcrunch is
only showing their own ignorance by misunderstanding her position, maybe the
internet really has made them dumb?

------
JulianMorrison
The internet is the first medium that doesn't intrinsically favor one
narrative form over another. Blogs exist because it's possible to economically
"publish" a paragraph. They abound, because thinking up one paragraph articles
is easy. It's equally possible to publish a novel or a serial, or some new
form. We really can't know yet what the long term literary impact of the
internet will be.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
I think the main distinction between web and print is that the web expects
content to be free. Most free online material on a given subject is garbage or
fluff. The average quality of printed information is higher, because of the
monetary aspect.

However, there's tons of great information online locked up in databases and
newsletters requiring paid subscription. It's just that when people talk about
"the web" they're usually referring to all the free crap.

~~~
JulianMorrison
The "free crap" has a huge survival advantage, speaking in Darwinian terms -
it can be copied, remixed, linked, shared, brought up to date, and improved
upon. Paid content is locked out of the culture. It's dead data.

------
caveman82
I agree in the sense that the internet conditions us to accept quick, bite-
size blurbs of information. This has resulted in a society of instant
gratification and petty distractions. Seldom do people have the patience or
discipline anymore to read an enriching piece of literature that actually has
substance or to embark on a fulfilling journey of mastering a certain craft.
This behavioral byproduct of the internet is also similar to what happens when
all a person absorbs is television programming and magazines.

------
pg
Her article: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=87752>

------
herdrick
"... and you kids get off my lawn!"

------
edw519
Substitute "television" for "internet" and I agree with this argument. There
are 3 big differences: choice, proactivity, and interactivity. Otherwise, I
don't buy it.

