Prize-Winning Neuroscientist Eric Kandel Essay
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
Prize-Winning Neuroscientist Eric Kandel Essay
Prize-Winning Neuroscientist Eric Kandel Essay
The cognitive effects are measurable: We’re turning into shallow thinkers, says Nicholas Carr.
By NICHOLAS CARR- the wall street journal
Updated June 5, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET
The Roman philosopher Seneca may have put it best 2,000 years ago: “To be everywhere is to be nowhere.” Today, the
Internet grants us easy access to unprecedented amounts of information. But a growing body of
scientific evidence suggests that the Net, with its constant distractions and interruptions, is also turning us into scattered and superficial thinkers. (1)
The picture emerging from the research is deeply troubling, at least to anyone who values the depth, rather than just the
velocity, of human thought. People who read text studded with links, the studies show, comprehend less than those who
read traditional linear text. People who watch busy multimedia presentations remember less than those who take in
information in a more sedate and focused manner. People who are continually distracted by emails, alerts and other
messages understand less than those who are able to concentrate. And people who juggle many tasks are
less creative and less productive than those who do one thing at a time. (2)
The common thread in these disabilities is the division of attention. The richness of our thoughts, our memories and even our personalities hinges on our ability to focus the mind and sustain concentration. Only when we pay deep
attention to a new piece of information are, we able to associate it “meaningfully and systematically with knowledge
already well established in memory,” writes the Nobel Prize-winning neuroscientist Eric Kandel. Such associations are
essential to mastering complex concepts. (3)
When we’re constantly distracted and interrupted, as we tend to be online, our brains are unable to forge the strong
and expansive neural connections that give depth and distinctiveness to our thinking. We become mere signal-
processing units, quickly shepherding disjointed bits of information into and then out of short-term memory. (4)
In an article published in Science last year, Patricia Greenfield, a leading developmental psychologist, reviewed dozens
of studies on how different media technologies influence our cognitive abilities. Some of the studies indicated that
certain computer tasks, like playing video games, can enhance “visual literacy skills,” increasing the speed at which
people can shift their focus among icons and other images on screens. Other studies, however, found that such
rapid shifts in focus, even if performed adeptly, result in less rigorous and “more automatic” thinking. (5)
In one experiment conducted at Cornell University, for example, half a class of students was allowed to use Internet-
connected laptops during a lecture, while the other had to keep their computers shut. Those who browsed the Web
performed much worse on a subsequent test of how well they retained the lecture’s content. While it’s hardly surprising that Web surfing would distract students, it should be a note of caution to schools that are wiring their classrooms in
hopes of improving learning. (6)
Ms. Greenfield concluded that “every medium develops some cognitive skills at the expense of others.” Our growing use
of screen-based media, she said, has strengthened visual-spatial intelligence, which can improve the ability to do jobs
that involve keeping track of lots of simultaneous signals, like air traffic control. But that has been accompanied by “new weaknesses in higher-order cognitive processes,” including “abstract vocabulary, mindfulness, reflection, inductive
problem solving, critical thinking, and imagination.” We’re becoming, in a word, shallower. (7)
In another experiment, recently conducted at Stanford University’s Communication Between Humans and Interactive
Media Lab, a team of researchers gave various cognitive tests to 49 people who do a lot of media multitasking and 52 people who multitask much less frequently. The heavy multitaskers performed poorly on all the tests. They were more
easily distracted, had less control over their attention, and were much less able to distinguish important information
from trivia. (8)
The researchers were surprised by the results. They had expected that the intensive multitaskers would have gained
some unique mental advantages from all their on-screen juggling. But that wasn’t the case. In fact, the heavy multitaskers weren’t even good at multitasking. They were considerably less adept at switching between tasks than the
more infrequent multitaskers. “Everything distracts them,” observed Clifford Nass, the professor who heads the Stanford
lab. (9)
It would be one thing if the ill effects went away as soon as we turned off our computers and cellphones. But they don’t.
The cellular structure of the human brain, scientists have discovered, adapts readily to the tools we use, including those for finding, storing and sharing information. By changing our habits of mind, each new technology strengthens certain
neural pathways and weakens others. The cellular alterations continue to shape the way we think even when we’re not
using the technology. (10)
The pioneering neuroscientist Michael Merzenich believes our brains are being “massively remodeled” by our ever-
intensifying use of the Web and related media. In the 1970s and 1980s, Mr. Merzenich, now a professor emeritus at the University of California in San Francisco, conducted a famous series of experiments on primate brains that revealed how
extensively and quickly neural circuits change in response to experience. When, for example, Mr. Merzenich rearranged
the nerves in a monkey’s hand, the nerve cells in the animal’s sensory cortex quickly reorganized themselves to create a new “mental map” of the hand. In a conversation late last year, he said that he was profoundly worried about the
cognitive consequences of the constant distractions and interruptions the Internet bombards us with. The long-term
effect on the quality of our intellectual lives, he said, could be “deadly.” (12)
What we seem to be sacrificing in all our surfing and searching is our capacity to engage in the quieter, attentive modes
of thought that underpin contemplation, reflection and introspection. The Web never encourages us to slow down. It keeps us in a state of perpetual mental locomotion. (13)
It is revealing, and distressing, to compare the cognitive effects of the Internet with those of an earlier information
technology, the printed book. Whereas the Internet scatters our attention, the book focuses it. Unlike the screen, the
page promotes contemplativeness. (14)
Reading a long sequence of pages helps us develop a rare kind of mental discipline. The innate bias of the human brain,
after all, is to be distracted. Our predisposition is to be aware of as much of what’s going on around us as possible. Our
fast-paced, reflexive shifts in focus were once crucial to our survival. They reduced the odds that a predator would take us by surprise or that we’d overlook a nearby source of food. (15)
To read a book is to practice an unnatural process of thought. It requires us to place ourselves at what T. S. Eliot, in his
poem “Four Quartets,” called “the still point of the turning world.” We have to forge or strengthen the neural links needed
to counter our instinctive distractedness, thereby gaining greater control over our attention and our mind. (16)
It is this control, this mental discipline, that we are at risk of losing as we spend ever more time scanning and skimming online. If the slow progression of words across printed pages damped our craving to be inundated by mental
stimulation, the Internet indulges it. It returns us to our native state of distractedness, while presenting us with far more
distractions than our ancestors ever had to contend with. (17)
—Nicholas Carr is the author, most recently, of “The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains.”
Choose three interesting quotes from this article. Copy them below.
1.
2.
3.
Prize-Winning Neuroscientist Eric Kandel Essay
Prize-Winning Neuroscientist Eric Kandel Essay
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow