FINAL PAPER

Thanks to the creation of Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, also known as ARPANET, the first workable model of the Internet came about in the 1960’s. About half a century later the Internet is now a global network that connects millions of computers together and something that is a huge part of our daily lives. Whether it is used for research or to find the funniest cat video on YouTube, the Internet can either be seen as a good addition to our world or as something that is slowly but surely deteriorating our abilities to perform certain tasks as normal human beings should be able to. It is important for people to know the benefits and disadvantages that the Internet can bring to them so that they can learn how to use it to better themselves. Nicholas Carr is the author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” and he has also published books and articles on topics such as technology, business, and culture. Carr believes that the Internet is affecting us in a negative way but Clive Thompson, a Canadian freelance journalist, blogger, science, technology writer ,and author of “Public Thinking”, does not agree with Carr at all and believes that the Internet is actually benefiting us. Clay Shirky is on the same page as Thompson, he wrote “Does the Internet Make You Smarter?” and is consultant and teacher on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies. This paper as a whole will go farther in depth by looking at each of the texts and the claims that the authors make to determine at the end which side of the argument I agree with more and give my own opinion on what I think about this topic.  

In the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” by Nicholas Carr looks at what negative effects the constant use of the Internet can have on someone. Carr states that he himself has noticed that he has been affected by the Internet, his ability to function cognitively as well as he used to has been diminished. He himself writes, “I think I know what’s going on. For more than a decade now, I’ve been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing and sometimes adding to the great databases of the Internet”. Carr can no longer concentrate on long texts without being distracted and he blames the Internet for that. As he has talked to others he now knows that he is not the only one who is seeing these differences in themselves. Carr includes anecdotes from scholarly people such as Scott Karp and Bruce Friedman who are experiencing the same things as himself. Karp who once loved to read books has stopped reading books altogether and Friedman, a pathologist, states that he can no longer read War and Peace anymore because he just begins to skim it. In efforts to strengthen his argument Carr also includes Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist, who believes that the Internet can shape our neural circuits. He also includes other people who have seen with simple technologies such as the typewriter, mechanical clock that it has changed the way people do things, how Socrates thought writing would ruin their knowledge, and when the printing press was invented that it would make people lazy because books would be easily accessed. Overall Carr gives all of these examples to prove that the Internet can greatly affect, in a negative manner, the capacity for concentration and contemplation. A strength in his text is that he uses pathos a lot, he tries to make the text very personal so that people can tend to sway on his side of the argument.He gives a lot of examples on how various people have been affected but that is also a great weakness in his text. Most of what he uses as evidence and proof are just merely strong opinions which are passed as facts and his position on the argument is mostly one sided and he does not bother to look at the benefits the Internet can bring to our society.

Clay Thompson author of “Public Thinking” does not agree at all with Carr’s side of the argument, in fact believes the complete opposite. He believes that the Internet is actually benefiting us and making us better writers, readers and thinkers. The amount of writing the Internet has inspired is a very important and good change for people in this society. Thompson includes some anecdotes like Carr does but to show the good that the Internet can bring. One of the people he includes is Ory Okolloh, whom with the help of the Internet, set up a blog and began writing about things that were taking place in her country as a way for people outside of the country to know what was going on. Thompson does believe that the Internet has changed us but for the better because back then people never wrote for pleasure, according to his mother, they wrote only when they were required to and even then it was not much. Deborah Brandt is included in Thompson’s text to show the benefits of writing. She states, “People read in order to generate writing; we read from the posture of the writer; we write to other people who write”. Reading and writing have now become one thanks to the advancements in technology. Due to all of this writing it is helping clarify peoples thinking. Thompson includes Cecil Day Lewis, a poet, to support that claim he states, “I do not sit down at my desk to put into verse something that is already clear in my mind…If it were clear in my mind I should have no incentive to write about it”. With writing down things to help clarify peoples thought also comes the audience. Thompson includes in his text that writing for an audience can greatly improve the way people write because they know that someone else will be reading it and criticizing their work. He includes experiments that professors from well known universities/colleges, such as Douglas College and Stanford University, have conducted on their own students. In both cases these professors found that when their students, when writing for an audience, tended to write better and more. Thompson does a good job in his text in supporting his claims with valid and clear evidence which is a strength in his text. A weakness in his text is that some of the evidence he uses can be difficult to relate to, such as the study done on Stanford students, because not a lot of people can be said to be at the same scholarly level as those who attend Stanford.

Clay Shirky’s text “Does the Internet Make You Smarter?” agrees, for the most part with Thompson’s text. In his text he states that many people think that the Internet is making the younger generations stupid but what some people do not know is that the belief that new technologies are ruining intellectual life goes back very far. When the printing press came out people thought that it would ruin intellectual life but it did the complete opposite. With all of the new novels, newspapers, and scientific journals being produced and shown to the world it increased the intellectual range of the people.  Taking time to watch television and participate in what some what would consider “distractions” can actually be good for the cognitive health of people. Shirky includes evidence on how the Internet can be a great addition when he talks about Ushahidi a “Kenyan crisis mapping tool invented in 2008, now aggregates citizen reports about crises the world over” and “PatientsLikeMe, a website designed to accelerate medical research by getting patients to publicly share their health information, has assembled a larger group of sufferers of Lou Gehrig's disease than any pharmaceutical agency in history, by appealing to the shared sense of seeking medical progress”. He accepts the fact that the society that we live in is “characterized by lots of throwaway cultural artifacts” but that is okay because the “issue isn't whether there's lots of dumb stuff online—there is, just as there is lots of dumb stuff in bookstores”. As technologies develop and become more advanced, the people will develop along with it. Shirky’s text is strong because he looks at both sides of the argument and rebuts the opposing views with evidence that he has found.

Many people might say that as a child born in the 20th century I grew up with all of this technology but my situation was different. Growing up I did not have the privilege of having different technological devices. We had a computer at home, but there was no Internet. The main use of the computer at that time was for my sister and I to play educational games which were accessed by inserting a compact disc into the base unit or go on Paint and doodle. It was not until I was in around the fourth grade that my mother and father were practically forced to get Internet, simply because my sister was beginning to need it for school work and various projects. Even then it was simply only used for educational purposes, and I did not use it very much because I was very young and did not really need it for anything important.

As the years progressed I began to need to use the Internet for school projects and simply just for entertainment. With the use of the Internet over the years I feel like it has been of great benefit to me. It allows for me to gain knowledge within seconds on any basically any topic I can think of. There is many people who might say that since the invention of the Internet, many people can no longer read, write or perform cognitively as well as they used to be able to. They say it distracts them but Shirkey states, “In the history of print, we got erotic novels 100 years before we got scientific journals, and complaints about distraction have been rampant…”. I agree with Shirky, there has always been distractions such as television and erotic novels so why blame the Internet?

Viewing my own experience in using the Internet over the years, I have not seen it affect me as much as other say that it has affected them. Being able to view texts online, such as eBooks or anything else, has been very helpful. Having the text in from and eBook or Portable Document Format file in front of me allows me to take these texts anywhere and be able to read in a more efficient manner. I can still read books which are printed on paper and understand them as well as when I did not have the Internet but if there was something that I did not understand I could go on Google and search for help on the web. Not only has it benefitted the way I read but also the way I write. As Thompson states in his text, “The new forms of digital writing, particularly their “public” character, involve writing for an audience, and this significantly improves writing…”. Things such as posting on a blog, sending an email, or tweeting can all improve the way we write. Because I know that someone else anywhere in the world can be reading what I have posted I tend to make sure that things such as my grammar are correct and I actually think more about what I am going to write. 

Overall I believe that using the Internet had helped me out a lot in various aspects. I believe I think better, and not less, than I would if I did not have the Internet because it allows for me to learn so much from other peoples work. Being able to have the Internet actually helps me think better because it allows for me to expand my thoughts by quickly accessing other texts about the same topic(s). I can read a text online and still think about it as much as I would have if the book was in a physical form. The Internet lets me connect with people and be able to get their own opinions on a certain topic to be able to further analyze it, which maybe could not have been done as quickly if the others lived in another city, state or even country.

Works Cited 

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 01 July 2008. Web. 05 Dec. 2014. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/4/>.

Shirky, Clay. "Does the Internet Make You Smarter?" The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 4 June 2010. Web. 05 Dec. 2014. <http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704025304575284973472694334>.

Thompson, Clive. "Public Thinking." Smarter than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better. N.p.: Penguin, 2013. 47-69. Print.

"Who Invented the Internet?" History.com. A&E Television Networks, 18 Dec. 2013. Web. 05 Dec. 2014. <http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/who-invented-the-internet>.

Paper Outline

In this paper I will first address the issue by introducing the topic and I will tell the reader what they will be expecting in the paper and maybe put in my personal anecdote. After this Carr’s text will be introduced along with the two other texts I will be using (Thompson and Shirkey) and show how the two texts fuse with Carr’s claims. All of the texts will then be evaluated so that I can show what the strengths and weaknesses are of each of them. After all of that I will state my own opinion and which side I agree with by using evidence to develop my ethos from either Thompson’s or Shirkey’s texts. Finally there will be a conclusion which will summarize the entire paper in a brief amount of sentences.

Annotated Bibliography & Outline

Carr Claim: 

Ability to concentrate is beginning to decrease due to the Internet.

Sub-claim: 

Does the brain really absorb and mimic what we do on the Internet?

Source: 

Pinker, Steven. "Mind Over Mass Media." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 June 2010. Web. 22 Nov. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/opinion/11Pinker.html?_r=0>.

How I will use this source:

I will use Pinker’s source to support my own claim and therefore go against Carr’s claim because this source challenges Carr’s text and it helps out my sub-claim.

Thompson Claim: 

Reading and writing on the Internet can help us cognitively 

Source:

Shirky, Clay. "Does the Internet Make You Smarter?" The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 4 June 2010. Web. 22 Nov. 2014. <http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704025304575284973472694334>

How will I use this source:

To extend Thompson’s claim.

Anecdote

Growing up I did not have the privilege of having different technological devices. We had a computer at home, but there was no Internet. The main use of the computer at that time was for my sister and I to play educational games which were accessed by inserting a compact disc into the base unit or go on Paint and doodle. It was not until I was in around the fourth grade that my mother and father were practically forced to get Internet, simply because my sister was beginning to need it for school work and various projects. Even then it was simply only used for educational purposes, and I did not use it very much because I was very young and did not really need it for anything important.

As the years progressed I began to need to use the Internet for school projects and simply just for entertainment. With the use of the Internet over the years I feel like it has been of great benefit to me. It allows for me to gain knowledge within seconds on any basically any topic I can think of. There is many people who might say that since the invention of the Internet, many people can no longer read, write or perform cognitively as well as they used to be able to. 

Viewing my own experience in using the Internet over the years, I have not seen it affect me as much as other say that it has affected them. Being able to view texts online, such as eBooks or anything else, has been very helpful. Having the text in from and eBook or Portable Document Format file in front of me allows me to take these texts anywhere and be able to read in a more efficient manner. I can still read books which are printed on paper and understand them as well as when I did not have the Internet but if there was something that I did not understand I could go on Google and search for help on the web. Not only has it benefitted the way I read but also the way I write. As Thompson states in his text things such as posting on a blog, sending an email, or tweeting can all improve the way we write. Because I know that someone else anywhere in the world can be reading what I have posted I tend to make sure that things such as my grammar are correct and I actually think more about what I am going to write. 

Overall I believe that using the Internet had helped me out a lot in various aspects. I believe I think better, and not less, than I would if I did not have the Internet because it allows for me to learn so much from other peoples work. Being able to have the Internet actually helps me think better because it allows for me to expand my thoughts by quickly accessing other texts about the same topic(s). I can read a text online and still think about it as much as I would have if the book was in a physical form. The Internet lets me connect with people and be able to get their own opinions on a certain topic to be able to further analyze it, which maybe could not have been done as quickly if the others lived in another city, state or even country.

Clay Shirky Summary

Karina Torres 

Warsan Artan

Tony Pineda

In “Does the Internet Make You Smarter?” Clay Shirky looks back into time when the movable type was invented. People saw this new technology as something that could take apart intellectual life but actually did the complete opposite. Our cognitive abilities are so great that spending 34.5 hours a week watching television does not affect us. Even when television became popular people still spent more time watching television than actually reading. Shirky argues that the Internet actually “restores reading and writing as central activities in our culture” because unlike just sitting and watching television, people read and write while using the Internet. He also states that “there's lots of dumb stuff online—there is, just as there is lots of dumb stuff in bookstores” which shows that just because some people have a negative view of the Internet, it does not mean everything about it is bad. 

Carr, publisher of the text “Is Google Making Us Stupid” has an opposing view from Shirky. While Shirky decides to support the position of how the internet benefits us, Carr believes that it’s hurting us. Carr emphasizes how the internet is affecting our cognitive abilities for concentration and contemplation. He sees the internet as diminishing our mental capabilities and in an essence taking a step back from progress. Shirk provides contradicting views that states how the internet opens our mind more, permitting us to expose ourselves to reading and writing better than before. 

Both of these texts do a good job at providing well supported and different views on how the Internet is might be benefiting us or affecting us.

"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Essay

In recent discussions of the benefits and disadvantages of the Internet and its search engines, a controversial issue has been whether search engines such as Google are of any good to our society. On one hand some argue that Google is a great addition to have because it allows for anyone to find large amounts of information on a certain topic within seconds. From this perspective, the Internet’s existence is valued. On the other hand, however, others argue that the constant use of search engines is making us less intelligent. Nicholas Carr is an American writer and author of  “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” which goes into detail about how the Internet might be affecting us as humans. Carr is one of this views main proponents, he believes that because the Internet is so accessible the human race is being affected in ways such as our way of thinking, reading, and even our concentration. My own view is that, although the Internet might be making us lazier I do not believe that it is making us “stupid”, my intuitive thought is that the Internet can actually improve the way we think because accessibility to knowledge is just a click away. Therefore, in this paper I will examine Carr’s claims and strategies he uses to support his argument, and determine whether or not his argument as a whole is persuasive. 

With all of this debating going on about whether or not the Internet is beneficial to us as humans, the real question is, how exactly is the constant use of the Internet affecting us? Carr answers this question by providing studies to support his claim, establishing logos. In a recent study done by scholars from University College London they tracked the computer logs of two popular research sites, that provide access to things such a journals articles and other types of written information, and documented the activity of its visitors. Carr states, “They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity”…They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they “bounce” out to another site” (Carr). In other words the Internet is starting to not only change the way we read but also the way we think. We no longer read in the traditional way, we now look for key words in a title or text until we find what we need and then we stop reading. Not only have they found that it affects other people, but Carr also uses himself as an example. Carr says, “I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading” (Carr). He uses this strategy to advance his claim because it establishes a strong sense of logos. By using the study done by University College London, Carr’s claim suddenly becomes stronger because he is using sources that can be trusted. The reader can then relate to it because he himself has found that he sometimes has trouble concentrating on one topic for long periods of time. With that Carr hopes that the audience will be persuaded easier because he uses an example that is more than just “true”, it is real. Logos in this case does a good job at furthering his central claim because the way that it is used shows a plausible example of his claim in real life.

Continuous use of the Internet, in Carr’s point of view, can be seen as very dangerous  because distracts us and affects us in the long run. In “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Carr introduces Scott Karp, an avid blogger. Karp states, “I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader” (Carr).  Due to his constant use of the Internet Karp has had trouble staying focused on long texts, and because of this he has stopped reading books. He believes this happened not because the way he reads has changed but the way he thinks has changed. A story similar to Karp’s is that of Bruce Friedman. Friedman, a faculty member of the University of Michigan Medical School and blogger about the use of computers in medicine, also believes that the Internet has changed his mental habits. Things like reading a blog post longer than three or four paragraphs and reading War and Peace have become a true struggle for him. Friedman has adapted to skimming through large texts and no longer reads the whole thing. Carr uses Karp and Friedman as examples in order to appeal to the readers emotions by the use of pathos. Using pathos in this case works because it shows a true life example of two very intelligent men who now, due to the Internet, can no longer read large texts and have trouble concentrating on one topic. Carr used the strategy of pathos in order to be able to appeal to the reader in a more emotional way in hopes that they will feel some sort of emotional empathy towards these two men. Therefore his audience tends to be persuaded much easier by Carr’s argument since they are emotionally hooked. Including pathos as a strategy in his text does a really good job at extending his central claim because it grabs the readers attention and shows them how the use of the Internet has affected these two scholarly men and in that case can affect anyone.

Along with using pathos and logos to try and persuade his audience Carr also uses exemplification. Exemplification is simply just providing several examples to the reader that have to do with the topic.  One of the many examples given is when Carr talks about a man by the name of Friedrich Nietzsche who bought a type writer in 1882 because his vision was weakening. This man learned and memorized which key corresponded to each letter of the alphabet and was able to write once again but his work was never the same. Carr states, “One of Nietzsche’s friends, a composer, noticed a change in his style of writing. His terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic” (Carr). Nietzsche was no longer writing as much because he obtained a type writer which was supposed to help him but instead did the opposite. Another example Carr gives is the mechanical clock. The clock began to be used more in the 14th century and that when this happened “we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of those technologies” (Carr). Before the clock ever existed people ate, slept, and worked when they had to but since the invention of the clock it mentally controlled the times when these activities were to be done.The effect that Carr wanted to have on his audience was, I believe, to show how not only the Internet but other inventions have affected certain cognitive areas. By using exemplification this strategy can work to persuade his audience but the fact that he tends to sway away from how the Internet affects our mental abilities, he goes on to talk about type writers and mechanical clocks can be seen as weakness in his text.

Overall, Carr believes that due to the use of the Internet humans are being cognitively affected and therefore the Internet should be seen as a bad addition to our world. What I believe is that having the Internet as a tool can actually help us learn a lot because when I for example need help on a math problem can look it up on Google and millions of links will come up on how to solve similar problems. Carr’s strategies can be seen as effective because he has evidence to support them but overall I think they could have been stronger. His argument from what I have read in his text is very one sided, he does not look at all of the good the invention of the Internet had brought to us he just focuses on the bad. If he would have included views from people who disagree with his argument and showed them how and why they were wrong his paper as a whole could have been much stronger.

Works Cited

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 01 July 2008. Web. 11 Nov. 2014. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/>

Draft Carr Essay

In recent discussions of the benefits and disadvantages of the Internet and its search engines, a controversial issue has been whether search engines such as Google are of any good to our society. On one hand some argue that Google is a great addition to have because it allows for anyone to find large amounts of information on a certain within seconds. From this perspective, the Internet’s existence is valued. On the other hand, however, others argue that the constant use of search engines is making us less intelligent. Nicholas Carr is an American writer and author of  “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” which goes into detail about how the Internet might be affecting us a humans. Carr is one of this views main proponents, he believes that because the Internet is so accessible the human race is not having to work as much to find a certain piece of information because the Internet does it for them, making us “stupid”. My own view is that, although the Internet might be making us lazier I do not believe that it is making us “stupid”, my intuitive thought is that the Internet can actually improve the way we think because accessibility to knowledge is just a click away. Therefore, in this paper I will examine Carr’s claims and strategies he uses to support his argument, and determine whether or not his argument as a whole is persuasive. 

With all of this debating going on about whether or not the Internet is beneficial to us as humans, the real question is, how exactly is the constant use of the Internet affecting us? In a recent study done by scholars from University College London they tracked the computer logs of two popular research sites, that provide access to things such a journals articles and other types of written information, and documented the activity of its visitors. Carr states, “They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity”…They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they “bounce” out to another site” (Carr). In other words the Internet is starting to not only change the way we read but also the way we think. We no longer read in the traditional way, we now look for key words in a title or text until we find what we need and then we stop reading. Not only have they found that it affects other people Carr uses himself as an example also. Carr says, “I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading” (Carr). He uses this strategy to advance his claim because it establishes a strong sense of logos. By using the study done by University College London, Carr’s claim suddenly becomes stronger because he is using sources that can be trusted because the reader can then relate to it because he himself has found that he sometimes has trouble concentrating on one topic for long periods of time. The audience then tends to be persuaded easier because Carr uses an example that is more than just “true”, it is real . Logos in this case does a good job at furthering his central claim because the way that it is used shows a plausible example of his claim in real life.

Continuous use of the Internet, in Carr’s point of view, can be seen as very dangerous  because distracts us and affects us in the long run. In “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Carr introduces Scott Karp, an avid blogger. Karp states, “I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader” (Carr).  Due to his constant use of the Internet Karp has had trouble staying focused on long texts, and because of this he has stopped reading books. He believes this happened not because the way he reads has changed but the way he thinks has changed. A story similar to Karp’s is that of Bruce Friedman. Friedman, a faculty member of the University of Michigan Medical School and blogger about the use of computers in medicine, also believes that the Internet has changed his mental habits. Things like reading a blog post longer than three or four paragraphs and reading War and Peace have become a true struggle for him. Friedman has adapted to skimming through large texts and no longer reads the whole thing. Carr uses Karp and Friedman as examples in order to appeal to the readers emotions by the use of pathos. Using pathos in this case works because it shows a true life example of two very intelligent men who now, due to the Internet, can no longer read large texts and have trouble concentrating on one topic. Carr used the strategy of pathos in order to be able to appeal to the reader in a more emotional way. Therefore his audience tends to be persuaded much easier by Carr’s argument since they are emotionally hooked. Including pathos as a strategy in his text does a really good job at extending his central claim because it grabs the readers attention and shows them how the use of the Internet has affected these two scholarly men and in that case can affect anyone.

Along with using pathos and logos to try and persuade his audience Carr also uses exemplification. Exemplification is simply just providing several examples to the reader that have to do with the topic.  One of the many examples given is when Carr talks about a man by the name of Friedrich Nietzsche who bought a type writer in 1882 because his vision was weakening. This man learned and memorized which key corresponded to each letter of the alphabet and was able to write once again but his work was never the same. Carr states, “One of Nietzsche’s friends, a composer, noticed a change in his style of writing. His terse prose had become even tighter, more telegraphic” (Carr). Nietzsche was no longer writing as much because he obtained a type writer which was supposed to help him but instead did the opposite. Another example Carr gives is the mechanical clock. The clock began to be used more in the 14th century and that when this happened “we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of those technologies” (Carr). Before the clock every existed people ate, slept, and worked when they had to but since the invention of the clock it mentally controlled the times when these activities were to be done. By using exemplification this strategy can work to persuade his audience but the fact that he tends to sway away from how the Internet affects our mental abilities, he goes on to talk about type writers and mechanical clocks can be seen as weakness in his text. 

Overall, Carr believes that due to the use of the Internet humans are being cognitively affected and therefore should be seen as a bad addition to our world. What I believe is that having the Internet as a tool can actually help us learn a lot because when I for example need help on a math problem can look it up on Google and millions of links will come up on how to solve similar problems. Carr’s strategies can be seen as effective because he has evidence to support them but overall I think they could have been stronger. His argument from what I have read in his text is very one sided, he does not look at all of the good the invention of the Internet had brought to us he just focuses on the bad. If he would have included views from people who disagree with his argument and showed them how and why they were wrong his paper as a whole could have been much stronger.

Carr's Intro and Body Paragraph Revised

In recent discussions of the benefits and disadvantages of the Internet and its search engines, a controversial issue has been whether search engines such as Google are of any good to our society. On one hand some argue that Google is a great addition to have because it allows for anyone to find large amounts of information on a certain within seconds. From this perspective, the Internet’s existence is valued. On the other hand, however, others argue that the constant use of search engines is making us less intelligent. Nicholas Carr is an American writer and author of  “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” which goes into detail about how the Internet might be affecting us a humans. Carr is one of this views main proponents, he believes that because the Internet is so accessible the human race is not having to work as much to find a certain piece of information because the Internet does it for them, making us “stupid”. My own view is that, although the Internet might be making us lazier I do not believe that it is making us “stupid”, my intuitive thought is that the Internet can actually improve the way we think because accessibility to knowledge is just a click away. Therefore, in this paper I will examine Carr’s claims and strategies he uses to support his argument, and determine whether or not his argument as a whole is persuasive. 

With all of this debating going on about whether or not the Internet is beneficial to us as humans, the real question is, how exactly is the constant use of the Internet affecting us? In a recent study done by scholars from University College London they tracked the computer logs of two popular research sites, that provide access to things such a journals articles and other types of written information, and documented the activity of its visitors. Carr states, “They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity”…They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they “bounce” out to another site” (Carr). In other words the Internet is starting to not only change the way we read but also the way we think. We no longer read in the traditional way, we now look for key words in a title or text until we find what we need and then we stop reading. Not only have they found that it affects other people Carr uses himself as an example also. Carr says, “I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading” (Carr). He uses this strategy to advance his claim because it establishes a strong sense of logos. By using the study done by University College London, Carr’s claim suddenly becomes stronger because he is using sources that can be trusted because the reader can then relate to it because he himself has found that he sometimes has trouble concentrating on one topic for long periods of time. The audience then tends to be persuaded easier because Carr uses an example that is more than just “true”, it is real . Logos in this case does a good job at furthering his central claim because the way that it is used shows a plausible example of his claim in real life.

Carr's Second Body Paragraph

Continuous use of the Internet, in Carr’s point of view, can be seen as very dangerous  because distracts us and affects us in the long run. In “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Carr introduces Scott Karp, an avid blogger. Karp states, “I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader” (Carr).  Due to his constant use of the Internet Karp has had trouble staying focused on long texts, and because of this he has stopped reading books. He believes this happened not because the way he reads has changed but the way he thinks has changed. A story similar to Karp’s is that of Bruce Friedman. Friedman, a faculty member of the University of Michigan Medical School and blogger about the use of computers in medicine, also believes that the Internet has changed his mental habits. Things like reading a blog post longer than three or four paragraphs and reading War and Peace have become a true struggle for him. Friedman has adapted to skimming through large texts and no longer reads the whole thing. Carr uses Karp and Friedman as examples in order to appeal to the readers emotions by the use of pathos. Using pathos in this case works because it shows a true life example of two very intelligent men who now, due to the Internet, can no longer read large texts and have trouble concentrating on one topic. Carr used the strategy of pathos in order to be able to appeal to the reader in a more emotional way. Therefore his audience tends to be persuaded much easier by Carr’s argument since they are emotionally hooked. Including pathos as a strategy in his text does a really good job at extending his central claim because it grabs the readers attention and shows them how the use of the Internet has affected these two scholarly men and in that case can affect anyone.

Carr Draft Intro and Body Paragraph

In recent discussions of the benefits and disadvantages of the Internet and its search engines, a controversial issue has been whether search engines such as Google are of any good to our society. On one hand some argue that Google is a great addition to have because it allows for anyone to find large amounts of information on a certain within seconds. From this perspective, the Internet existence is valued. On the other hand, however, others argue that the constant use of search engines is making us less intelligent. Nicholas Carr is an American writer and author of  “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” which goes into detail about how the internet might be affecting us a humans. Carr is one of this views main proponents, he believes that because the Internet is so accessible the human race is not having to work as much to find a certain piece of information because the internet does it for them, making us “stupid”. My own view is that, although the internet might be making us lazier I do not believe that it is making us “stupid”. In this paper I will examine Carr’s claims and strategies he uses to support his argument, and determine whether or not his argument as a whole is persuasive. 

With all of this debating going on about whether or not the internet is beneficial to us as humans, the real question is, how exactly is the constant use of the internet affecting us? In a recent study done by scholars from University College London they tracked the computer logs of two popular research sites, that provide access to things such a journals articles and other types of written information, and documented the activity of its visitors. Carr states, “They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity”…They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they “bounce” out to another site” (Carr). In other words the Internet is starting to not only change the way we read but also the way we think. We no longer read in the traditional way, we now look for key words in a title or text until we find what we need and then we stop reading. Carr uses this strategy to advance his claim because it establishes a strong sense of logos. By using the study done by University College London, Carr’s claim suddenly becomes stronger because he is using sources that can be trusted because the reader can then relate to it because he himself has found that he sometimes has trouble concentrating on one topic for long periods of time. The audience then tends to be persuaded easier because Carr uses an example that is more than just “true”, it is real . Logos in this case does a good job at furthering his central claim because the way that it is used shows a plausible example of his claim in real life.

Carr Homework

In Nicholas Carr’s text “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” his over all argument is that, having Google as a tool is affecting the way us humans perform in certain aspects of our lives. Some of the main types of evidence he uses are studies, blog posts, and books. In order for him to persuade his audience he established a strong sense of ethos, some pathos, and logos.

Strategy Response to Perry & Rifkin

In reading Jeremy Rifkin’s “A Change of Heart About Animals” one strategy that interest me the most is how he uses pathos in his text. He really tries to get his audience to feel for these animals in order to persuade them that animals really do have feelings just like us humans. An example of this is when he writes, “Animals, it appears, experience grief. Elephants will often stand next to their dead kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks”. In Vince Perry’s text “The Art of Branding A Condition” the strategy that stood out the most to me was that he uses a lot of exemplification. This stood out to me because as he throws out big brand names such as Zantac, Viagra, and Listerine it really helps the reader understand that not only is there one example to support his claim but there are many.

For-Profit Draft

Karina Torres

Professor Christopher Werry

RWS 100

16 October 2014

For-Profit Essay Draft

College, a place where many young students and even adults aspire to go to in order to further their studies. What many people do not know is there are two types of colleges, for-profit and non-profit (traditional colleges). For-profit colleges, which have been receiving a lot of attention over the years, operate as a business and include schools such as the University of Phoenix, Grand Canyon University, Corinthian, and many more. On the other hand non-profits are the opposite and include schools such as California Baptist University, New York University, Stanford University, along with many others. Knowing the difference between these types of colleges is important because it can help a prospective student make the right decision based on the information that will be provided. Kevin Carey is an American higher education writer, policy analyst, and author of “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?”. In his text Carey looks at both sides of the argument, which is whether or not for-profit colleges are beneficial or not. In my analysis of Carey’s text I will examine the pros and cons of for-profit colleges and argue whether traditional colleges or for-profit colleges are a better option for those whom are either going back to school or recent high school graduates. 

In his text, Carey says that although for-profit colleges often get a bad reputation they are actually a great addition to our society. For-profit colleges actually help fill the void that is often left by traditional colleges. For example, a student that is underprivileged who does not have a great SAT score or GPA gets rejected by a university then turns to a for-profit college and is accepted. Carey states, “For-profits exist in large part to fix educational market failures left by traditional institutions and they profit by serving students that public and private nonprofit institutions often ignore” (Carey). In other words, because these students do not stand out to the regular colleges/universities they turn to the schools which will pay attention to them and allow them to further their studies.  Kevin Lang a professor of Economics at Boston University and Russell Weinstein an Assistant Professor of Economics wrote “Evaluating Student Outcomes at For-Profit Colleges”. Some of the information in this text written by Lang and Weinstein extends Carey’s claim that for-profits fill the need that traditional colleges leave behind. Lang and Weinstein write, “…students starting in certificate programs at for- profit institutions are much more likely to be Black, Hispanic, female, younger, and single at the time they enter college… Furthermore, income…and expected family contribution to college are much lower.” (Evaluating Student Outcomes at For-Profit Colleges 10). Lang and Weinstein’s text help extend Carey’s claim because it is more specific on which types of people are admitted into these for-profit universities and why. Not only is it just students who are underprivileged, don't have good grades, and a poor SAT score, for-profits are taking in those who might not have enough money to attend regular colleges.

For-profits do good to our society but there are also stories which paint them as a nightmare. Typically for-profits tend to charge their students much more than regular colleges do to be able to obtain the same degree. Because of this many students have to take out loans in order to be able to pay their schooling and after they graduate, paying back those loans is nearly impossible for them. In the words of Carey, “…a large and growing number of graduates of for-profit colleges are having trouble paying those loans back” (Carey). Since these students are having to take out all of this money and are unable to pay that money back it gives for-profits a bad look because it goes on their record. Gregory D. Kutz released a statement called, “For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices”. In his text, Kutz sent a people in undercover to various for-profit universities to find out the truth about them. Kutz’s text helps illustrate Carey’s claim when he writes, “In August 2009, GAO [Government Accountability Office] reported that in the repayment period, students who attended for-profit colleges were more likely to default on federal student loans than were students from other colleges” (Kutz 5). Since these students can not pay back their federal student loans the federal government and taxpayers are left with the cost. Many times they attend these schools and take out loans because it seems like a good investment for their future but in the end their degrees are not valid or they do not have proper training to perform their jobs. It is important for people to be smart and know that for-profit colleges tend to at least charge twenty-five times more than regular colleges and universities do so that when they are making their decisions on what school to attend to they will not be in debt for the rest of their lives.

Traditional schools often try and look down on for-profit universities by saying that they classes that they offer do not count in a traditional college/university. For example, if a person attended for-profit school such as Grand Canyon University and was studying for a degree in computer science all of the classes this person took at GCU would not transfer to a school such as New York University because for-profits are usually nationally accredited and not regionally accredited. Carey refutes this statement by saying, “They’ve [traditional institutions] pointed instead to regional accreditation, which conveniently allows colleges to decide for themselves whether they're doing a good job. But many for-profit institutions have regional accreditation, too” (Carey). Carey points out that an argument that traditional schools once had against for-profit institutions is no longer valid because a lot of them now are equal to traditional schools. Tying this back to his argument, for-profit universities are as good and no different from traditional institutions now so they deserve some respect. Jane Bennett Clark, a Northwestern University alumni, wrote a text called “The Real Deal on For-Profit Colleges” which can complicate Carey’s argument. In her text Clark talks about Justin Logsdon, he attended Westwood College to pursue a career in graphic design and when he failed to find a job in that field he decided to transfer his credits to a four-year public college but they did not count. Clark writes, “Most public and nonprofit colleges, however, are accredited by regional associations, deemed the gold standard by traditional academia. Those colleges typically refuse to accept credits from schools with national accreditation. To go from one to the other, as Logsdon tried to do, you have to start over” (Clark). Like Carey said most for-profit institutions do have regional and national accreditation but not all do. If they all did it would be much easier for students to be able to transfer in between them without having to start all over again.

Like every other colleges and universities, for-profits allow their students to have the option of applying for FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid), grants, and different types of loans. Carey states in his text that for-profit institutions make a large sum of their money from the government when he writes, “Most of that money comes from the federal government, in the form of Pell Grants and subsidized student loans. [University of] Phoenix alone is on pace to reap $1-billion from Pell Grants this year, along with $4-billion from federal loans” (Carey). For-profit institutions receive approximately a quarter of all federal aid even though they only enroll ten percent of all students. One way or another for-profit institutions have to make their money but sometimes the way they do it is not legal. Gregory D. Kutz, a Managing Director Forensics Audits and Special Investigations, released a statement called  “For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices” which can complicate Carey’s claim. In this text Kutz performed a sort of investigation by sending people into for profit institutions and made them pose as a person who was interested in applying for their college. What Kutz found out about for profits can make people change their opinions quickly, on whether or no the way they make a large sum of their money is in a moral and most importantly illegal manner. On various occasions some of the colleges encouraged the undercover applicant to falsify their FAFSA in order to be able to receive financial aid. One of the many occasions happened in a privately owned college in California, “Undercover applicant was encouraged by a financial aid representative to change the FAFSA to falsely increase the number of dependents in the household in order to qualify for Pell Grants” (Kutz 8). It is not bad that for-profits get most of their money from the government but it is bad that many times they encourage others lie in order for them to be able to receive more money from the government. 

All in all, there are many benefits in having for-profits as a way to educate those who are deciding to further their studies but there is also a greedy side to them. This text has provided the reader with information on for-profit institutions that can either make them believe that for-profit schools are the way to go or if they should avoid them. After all for-profits take in those who are rejected by regular institutions, and a lot of them are nationally and regionally accredited. But a lot of times students are left with load bearing debts and the way they make their money is not legal most of the time. Carey’s text provided claims which showed the benefits and possible disadvantages that can come with attending those types of institutions. What he failed to do was provide strong solid evidence after each of his claims, he did hint at them but never went into actual data or specific examples. After looking at Carey’s text along with all of the others I now know more about for-profit institutions and how they work and after analyzing them I believe that they are a great addition in providing students with an education but they need to be regulated so that students are not taken advantage of. 

Works Cited

Carey, Kevin. "Why Do You Think They're Called For-Profit Colleges?" The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., 25 July 2010. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. <http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Do-You-Think-Theyre/123660/>.

Clark, Jane B. "The Real Deal on For-Profit Colleges-Kiplinger." Www.kiplinger.com. Kiplinger, May 2011. Web. 17 Oct. 2014. <http://www.kiplinger.com/article/college/T012-C000-S002-the-real-deal-on-for-profit-colleges.html>.

Kutz, Gregory D. "For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices." (2010): 27. United States Government Accountability Office. Web. 18 Oct. 2014. <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10948t.pdf>.

Lang, Kevin, and Russell Weinstein. Evaluating Student Outcomes at For-Profit Colleges (2012): 32. June 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2014. <http://inpathways.net/for_profit_outcomes_2012.pdf>.

Sources

1. “The Real Deal on For-Profit Colleges” by Jane Bennett Clark published on May 2011 on kiplinger.com, pages: 4, http://www.kiplinger.com/article/college/T012-C000-S002-the-real-deal-on-for-profit-colleges.html
2. Augsut 4, 2010. "For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices."  http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10948t.pdf  by Gregory D. Kutz
3. Kevin Lang and Russell Weinstein, “Evaluating Student Outcomes at For-Profit Colleges”, June 2012, http://www.nber.org/papers/w18201.pdf?new_window=1http://www.nber.org/papers/w18201.pdf?new_window=1, pages 32

• Carey’s claim: Students who attend for profits can not pay their loans back. 
• extends: “…our undercover applicant would have paid $13,945 for a certificate in computer aided drafting program…at the for-profit college we visited. To obtain a certificate in computed-aided drafting at a nearby public college would have cost a student $520.”(Gregory D. Kutz)
• This quote by Kutz extends Carey’s claim because it goes into more detail about why students are unable to pay back there loans. Kutz does this by providing evidence that he found by sending in people undercover to get these results. 
• Carey’s claim: For-profits take in students who the public colleges and universities do not want.
• Qualifies: “They [students] are also less likely to have taken the SAT, less likely to have received their high school diploma, and less likely to have had a high school GPA above a 3.0.” (Lang & Weinstein)
• This quote qualifies Carey’s claim because it shows a perfect example of why traditional colleges ignore a lot of applicants. When this happens they look over to for-profits and they help them get into a school and obtain their degree. 

Elements In Different Texts

• “For-Profit Colleges Deserve Some Respect,” by Seiden
• Element that extends: “For-profit institutions, with their relatively open admissions requirements and flexible course scheduling, have been in the forefront of providing those people with renewed opportunities to gain a meaningful college degree.” (Seiden)
• “For-Profit Colleges, Vulnerable G.I.’s,” by Holly Perteaus
• Element that extends: “… between 2006 and 2010, the money received in military education benefits by just 20 for-profit companies soared to an estimated $521.2 million from $66.6 million… This gives for-profit colleges an incentive to see service members as nothing more than dollar signs in uniform…” (Perteaus)
• “For-Profit Recruiters and the ‘Pain Funnel.’”  by Jack Conway
• Element that challenges: “The for-profit colleges have been more aggressive than the non-profit colleges, but both are equally guilty of making promises that could never be fulfilled, using government loans and grants to generate revenue - all the while boasting about their effectiveness and independence. Both sectors need to be held accountable, and it only makes sense to begin with the colleges with the highest default rates. Can we please have a little common sense here? If Congress would stop "listening" to the lobbyists, something could be done.” (DDH)

Carey's Main Claims

Against For Profits: 

1. Claim: A large amount of people who attend for-profit colleges are required to take out loans which leaves them in debt.  Evidence:  Horror  stories of people who have went to for-profits and were convinced to take out loans for a worthless degree
2. Claim: For profits take advantage of their students who come from moderate- and low- income backgrounds because they charge them a lot more than public colleges/universities. Evidence: Official documents from Corinthian Colleges filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 
3. Claim: The federal government must regulate tax payer dollars that are going into towards the for-profit shareholders. Evidence: “90/10” rule, federal rule that requires for-profit colleges to get no more than 90% of their revenue from federal aid. 

For For-Profits:

1. Claim: For-profits take in students who the public colleges and universities do not want. Evidence: University of Phoenix as an example.
2. Claim: Many for-profits have regional accreditation just like regular colleges and universities. Evidence: Michael Clifford as an example to prove that that claim is true.
3. Claim: For-profits fill that space left by traditional institutions. Evidence: For-profits use the internet to their advantage to teach students who cannot make it to the colleges for in class sessions.

I would like to investigate claim number one in the “For for-profit” section to see how many students who are rejected by traditional colleges/universities actually are taken in by for-profits. 

"Why Do You Think They Are Called For Profit Colleges?” Questions

In Kevin Carey’s "Why Do You Think They Are Called For Profit Colleges?”, he organizes his text in a way that provides the audience with sufficient background information on a topic and then he provides facts to support his claims. I believe he does this so that the audience will know what he is talking about before he jumps in and starts stating the pros and cons about for-profit universities. A great strategy that Carey used was the way he framed the issue, he neither said he was for or against for-profit colleges but he did provide enough evidence to support both sides of the argument. I did not find any of his arguments particularly persuasive but I did find them very informative because he does a great job at supporting his arguments with concerts evidence.

College, Inc. Response

In watching College Inc., a segment provided by PBS, something that I found really interesting was that those who attend colleges such as University of Phoenix and ITT Tech tend to have a higher loan debt than those who attend regular colleges. Before watching this video I never really new anything about for-profit colleges and how they worked so I did not have any impression of them, I just knew they existed. Now that I have watched it I kind of know how they work and I will make sure that people whom I am close to do not attend those colleges because I do not want them to be in debt for the rest of their lives due to all of the loans they had to take out to attend. These colleges get a lot of applicants by spending a ridiculous amount of money on advertising their services. I would want to know how well these for profit colleges would do with little to no advertisement like regular non-profit colleges.

"Public Thinking" Essay

Advancements in technology have been a great addition to the lives of many people. On the other hand many people believe that due to all of this new technology, our culture is not the same as it was a couple of decades ago. Clive Thompson, who is the author of “Public Thinking”, looks at the advantages and disadvantages that advancements in technology has brought this generation to determine whether it is actually beneficial to us or not. Thompson is a renowned technology writer and a freelance contributor for newspapers such as The New York Times along with The Washington Post. He studied in order to determine how the Internet has had a positive impact on our lives. Even though many people believe that all of these new technologies are not doing any good to our society, Thompson writes in order to persuade the audience to believe that the Internet and other technological advancements can actually help us to become better writers and thinkers. In this paper I will explore Thompson’s main claims and the evidence he provides us with some of which include expert testimony, examples, and studies to establish a strong sense of ethos and logos and to show how technology is actually a great tool in allowing us to become better thinkers and writers. 

One of Thompson’s main claims is that an audience can have a huge impact on a writer. According to Thompson, things such as a post on Tumblr, Facebook or even a text message all involve writing for an audience which inadvertently improves the way we write, known as the “audience effect”. A study done by Stanford Professor Andrea Lunsford shows that back then most of the essays that were written by college freshmen were typically shorter than those of college freshmen now. In 2001, she began her study and convinced 189 of her students to give her copies of everything they had written all year. Five years later she had about fifteen thousand pieces of writing in all types of formats such as posts on blogs, text messages, emails, and many more (Smarter Than You Think 67). This is due to the fact that now people have access to social media and other forms of communication which they did not have back them, restraining the older generations to practice their writing as much as the newer generations do. Referring to the study done by Professor Lunsford, Thompson himself writes, “Because they [students] were often writing for other people…they were adept at reading the tempo of a thread, adapting their writing to people’s reactions” (Smarter Thank You Think 67). In other words, Thompson believes that if a person knows that whatever they are writing is going to be seen by either one person or a large group of people they will tend to be more careful about what they write and how they present their text. He organizes his evidence in a way that establishes a strong sense of ethos. Because Thompson uses the study done by a professor from a university as prestigious as Stanford to support his claim, it makes his overall argument a concrete one. 

Moreover, another claim that Thompson argues is that writing can help clarify our thinking. He states, “ Professional writers have long described the way that the act of writing forces them to distill their vague notions into clear ideas…This is why writers often find that it’s only when they start writing that they figure out what they want to say”(Smarter Than You Think 51). Thompson observes that when a person writes out what they are thinking onto a paper it helps them simplify the point that they are trying to get someone else to understand. As support for his argument Thompson mentions Cecil Day-Lewis, a poet, who said “I do not sit down at my desk to put into verse something that is already clear in my mind…If it were clear in my mind, I should shave no incentive or need to write about it…”(Smarter Than You Think 51). In other words, Cecil Day-Lewis helps support Thompson’s claim because like many he also writes “in order to understand not to be understood” (Smarter Than You Think 51), even though he is well-known writer. This claim that Thompson makes is very effective because it is very relatable. Many people who sit down to write something struggle with developing their thoughts and when they start to actually write it down it makes it easier for them to get their point across. Using Cecil Day-Lewis, a person whom has been known to write at an exceptional level, as an example worked as a great strategy in Thompson’s favor, it helps him creative a sort of logical appeal to the audience making him seem more credible. 

Another significant factor in the way the Internet has contributed in a positive manner to our society is because it allows us to make easier connections. According to Thompson, having the Internet allows people to be able communicate with one another in a simpler manner and it is easier for people to share their ideas now than it was back then. Having the internet allows people with the same ideas to come together and share their knowledge with one another, also known as the “theory of multiples”. Back then people did not have the Internet to quickly share their ideas so many times two people would  discover something simultaneously and never know that another person had also discovered the same thing. As an example Thompson uses the story of Ernest Duchesne who was the original discoverer of penicillin. He noticed that the stable boys would store saddles in a damp, dark room so that mold would heal the horses’ saddle sores. Intrigued, Duchesne decided to conduct an experiment on sick guinea pigs and treated them with a solution made from mold (penicillin) and found that they recovered completely. He then wrote up his findings in a PhD thesis but was ignored by the French Institut Pasteur because he was only twenty-three (Smarter Than You Think 60-61). Fifteen years later he died and his research disappeared and it took thirty-two years for, “… Scottish scientist Alexander Fleming to rediscover penicillin, independently with no idea that Duchesne had already done it” (Smarter Than You Think 61). Back then people did have the ability to communicate with one another but not as easily as we do now. If there was such thing as the internet at the time when Duchesne discovered penicillin, himself and Fleming could have worked together in figuring out how to make this medicine available to large groups of people and more effective. In other words advancements in technology, which birthed the Internet, allows for people to write more and in a more effective manner bringing together the ideas of many and resolving multiples. Thompson uses this historical example in his favor because it is full of facts which establishes logos in his argument making it more believable.

All in all, are the advancements in technology actually helping our society become better thinkers and writers, or is it doing the complete opposite? Thompson insist that the Internet has proven to be very beneficial in changing the way people write for the better. This is because of the effect of having an audience has on people, it helps clarify our thinking, and it encourages public thinking which makes people write more. One way Thompson could have made his argument stronger is by using studies which are more relatable to the common person, such as when he mentioned the study that Professor Lunsford did on her students at Stanford. Questions can be raised on whether or not students from Stanford are an equal representation of all students, because it is such a prestigious school. He could have used a different study that can relate to a broader audience and not just those students who attend such illustrious schools.  Other than that using all of these examples along with concrete evidence, Thompson does a great job in making the reader truly believe all of his points that he makes. 

"Public Thinking" Draft

Advancements in technology have been a great addition to the lives of many people. On the other hand many people believe that due to all of this new technology, our culture isn't the same as it was a couple of decades ago. Clive Thompson, who is the author of “Public Thinking”, looks at the advantages and disadvantages that advancements in technology has brought this generation to determine whether it is actually beneficial to us or not. Thompson is a renowned technology writer and a freelance contributor for newspapers such as The New York Times along with The Washington Post. He studied in order to determine whether the Internet has had a positive or a negative impact on our lives. Even though many people believe that all of these new technologies are not doing any good to our society, Thompson writes in order to persuade the audience to believe that the Internet and other technological advancements can actually help us to become better writers. In this paper I will explore Thompson’s main claims and overabundance of evidence some of which include expert testimony, examples, and studies to show how technology is actually a great tool in allowing us to become better thinkers and writers. 

One of Thompson’s main claims is that an audience can have a huge impact on a writer. According to Thompson, things such as a post on Tumblr, Facebook or even a text message all involve writing for an audience which inadvertently improves the way we write, known as the “audience effect”. A study done by Stanford Professor Andrea Lunsford shows that back then most of the essays that were written by college freshmen were typically shorter than those of college freshmen now. This is due to the fact that now people have access to social media and other forms of communication which they did not have back them, restraining the older generations to practice their writing as much as the newer generations do. Referring to the study done by Professor Lunsford, Thompson himself writes, “Because they [students] were often writing for other people…they were adept at reading the tempo of a thread, adapting their writing to people’s reactions.” (Smarter Thank You Think 67) What he means by this is that writing for an audience betters the way people write. In other words, Thompson believes that if a person knows that whatever they are writing is going to be seen by either one person or a large group of people they will tend to be more careful about what they write and how they present their text. He organizes his evidence in a way that establishes a strong sense of logos. Because Thompson uses the study done by a professor from a university as prestigious as Stanford to support his claim, it makes his overall argument a concrete one. 

Moreover, another claim that Thompson argues is that writing can help clarify our thinking. He states, “ Professional writers have long described the way that the act of writing forces them to distill their vague notions into clear ideas…This is why writers often find that it’s only when they start writing that they figure out what they want to say.”(Smarter Than You Think 51) Thompson observes that  when a person writes out what they are thinking onto a paper it helps them simplify the point that they are trying to get someone else to understand. As support for his argument Thompson mentions Cecil Day-Lewis, a poet, who said “I do not sit down at my desk to put into verse something that is already clear in my mind…If it were clear in my mind, I should shave no incentive or need to write about it…”(Smarter Than You Think 51) In other words, Cecil Day-Lewis helps support Thompson’s claim because like many he also writes in order to understand not to be understood even though he is well-known writer. This claim that Thompson makes is very effective because it is very relatable. Many people who sit down to write something struggle with developing their thoughts and when they start to actually write it down it makes it easier for them to get their point across. Using Cecil Day-Lewis as an example worked as a great strategy in Thompson’s favor, it helps him creative a sort of logical appeal to the audience making him seem more credible. 

Another, significant factor in the way the Internet has contributed in a positive manner to our society is because it allows us to make easier connections. According to Thompson, having the Internet allows for people to be able communicate with one another in a simpler manner and it is easier for people to share their ideas now than it was back then. Having the internet allows people with the same ideas to come together and share their knowledge with one another, also known as the theory of multiples. Back then people did not have the Internet to quickly share their ideas so many times two people would  discover something simultaneously and never know that another person had also discovered the same thing. As an example Thompson uses the story of Ernest Duchesne who was the original discoverer of penicillin. He noticed that the stable boys would store saddles in a damp, dark room so that mold would heal the horses’ saddle sores. Intrigued, Duchesne decided to conduct an experiment on sick guinea pigs and treated them with a solution made from mold (penicillin) and found that they recovered completely. He then wrote up his findings in a PhD thesis but was ignored by the French Institut Pasteur because he was only twenty-three. (Smarter Than You Think 60-61) Fifteen years later he died and his research disappeared and it took thirty-two years for, “… Scottish scientist Alexander Fleming to rediscover penicillin, independently with no idea that Duchesne had already done it.” (Smarter Than You Think 61) If Duchesne had some way of making his discovery public, Fleming and himself could have worked together in order to prevent the deaths of many people. In other words advancements in technology, which birthed the Internet, allows for people to write more and in a more effective manner bringing together the ideas of many and resolving multiples. Thompson uses this historical example in his favor because it is full of facts which establishes logos in his argument making it more believable.

All in all, are the advancements in technology actually helping our society become better thinkers and writers, or is it doing the complete opposite? Thompson insist that the Internet has proven to be very beneficial in changing the way people write for the better. This is because of the effect of having an audience has on people, it helps clarify our thinking, and it encourages public thinking which makes people write more. Using all of these examples along with concrete evidence, Thompson does a great job in making the reader truly believe all of his points that he makes.