http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=internet-transactive-memory&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20110715
“Has the Internet dumbed down society or simply become an external storage unit that enhances the human brain’s memory capacity? With Google, Internet Movie Database and Wikipedia at our beck and call via smart phones, tablets and laptops, the once essential function of committing facts to memory has become little more than a flashback to flash cards. This shift is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it irreversible, according to a team of researchers whose study on search engines and learning appears in the July 15 issue of Science.”
An interesting article and one that raises many fundamental questions.
It is true to say that one virtue of the internet is the relative accessibility and immediacy with which one can obtain answers to questions.
If they are of course privileged enough to have access to the tools necessary to make this possible. One often assumes that access to information is widespread, but for many this is not the case.
The article takes the position that the internet (like mediums before it) simply allows us to recount information we may have not committed to memory, only faster than ever before; and further to that there is little additional consequence.
However the speed and relative accessibility of information enabled by new media technologies poses others consequences.
I would contend that when one must invest considerable effort/resources in seeking out information, for example going to the library, finding the right book, talking to the librarian and reading the literature, that one is far more likely to remember the information sought due to the relative effort and resources that have been invested in obtaining it; in that sense it is a ‘memorable’ experience.
In contrast, the relative immediacy of information made available by the internet in some sense devalues information, as the resources required to obtain it are often inconsequential.
For example, do you remember your jog in the park last week, or do you remember the marathon you ran way back in 2002? An investment in time and resources in reaching an end goal often creates a memorable process, the length of which gives the individual time to fundamentally consider why they are seeking this goal and the further to this the consequences of reaching it.
The article argues that the ability to critically analyze and conceptualize is far more important than the ability to access information (in many ways) and recount it from memory.
I would agree with this and note that often the framework/processes that drive the need for information/knowledge often dictate to what degree our ability to critically analyze develops. In short the answer to the question can only be as valuable as the question itself. This perhaps is the key to a good education. Not necessarily been given the right answers but been asked the right questions.
On a personal note this article has led me to critically analyze the process of online learning and distance learning courses; such as the MFA I am due to complete shortly. Did the immediacy of the information available alter my learning process, and did the course provide a framework that was conducive to encouraging critical analysis?
I would say most certainly that memory played little part on my route to successful grades, however the ability to instigate and be involved in a critical debate around a subject was essential. In some sense “the debate” was more accessible, informed and complex than ever before due to the resources we had around us to “fuel the fire’.
Whatever our initial position/contention, other students could always create counter arguments, and quicker than ever before due to the relative accessibility of information. In some sense there was little excuse not to be involved in the dialogue, as information that could lead to counter-arguments was not hard to come by.
This meant that a dialogue (complex) developed quickly and challenged ones ability to stay on-top of all arguments, their sources and develop a conceptual understanding of the debate itself and respond accordingly. The learning environment created a situation whereby the only way to rise to ascendency was to develop the ability to understand, analyze and develop counter-arguments faster than others. Memory itself posed little advantage. In contrast a physical debate that takes place in a confined environment with limited immediate resources (such as a lecture theatre) in contrast stunts the ability for more sophisticated arguments and debates to develop, as it relies on the knowledge ‘in the room’ to fuel the debate; an environment where clearly ‘memory’ may be an advantage.
In conclusion I would argue the internet makes ‘the debate’ more accessible than ever before and provides one with the opportunity to regularly challenge their mental capacity without physical restriction; it challenges us to assess whether the restrictions and processes associated with learning are in fact conducive to rapid personal development. Take for example the exam process where we restrict the flow of knowledge to the individual in an attempt to test their ability to recount from memory; perhaps we should reverse this process and provide unlimited flow of resources and information and instead assess the merits of the individual on their ability to answer far more complex questions as a result?