Is Google Making us Stupid?

What is the main claim/thesis?
The main claim, or thesis, is that the more dependent we become with computers and other technology, the more our own intelligence declines and the more brain-dead we become. According to Kubrick’s dark prophecy, by using this technology to understand different aspects of the world, we are generating artificial intelligence.
What are the means of support for the claim?

The means of support Carr uses are personal testimonies, examples, and appeal to logic and value. He uses himself as a support because he admits to being a victim of his argument, he says “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. A few Google searches, some quick clicks, and I’ve got the fact or quote I was after.” By stating this, he is showing how easy it is to become caught up in the convenience of the internet.
He uses himself as an example because most Americans can relate, and understand where he is coming from. Everyone knows that Google, or other internet search engines, make gathering information easy, however many do not realize what it is doing to their brains. Carr uses fact and an example of research done by scholars of the University College London, who were a part of a five year research project to explain how much our research habits have changed over the years. Carr’s writing causes reader’s to use logic and values when thinking about how often they use the internet, and what they are using it for.
Do the support strategies sufficiently prove the thesis?
The support strategies that Carr uses support his thesis to an extent. He explains how technology is ruining our brains, but he also contradicts himself by pointing out how regularly American’s use technology, and how often we need it for everyday tasks. His support strategies may have been better if he used more facts, or research done on why technology is destroying our brains with artificial intelligence.
“The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive”, this statement Carr makes contradicts his argument in a way because it shows that since we have access to bigger hard drives and fast processors outside of our brain, we should be using it. He does not intend to sound hypocritical; however his way of appealing to logic goes against his argument because as humans, we have come to accept the new forms of technology and the fact it could be destroying our brains.
How does the argument address opposing claims? Are those claims sufficiently refuted? The argument addresses opposing claims in a logical way. Carr gets personal with the readers, in a way that they understand what he is talking about and where he is coming from. The opposing claim, being we need technology, was not addressed on a level where humans will go against using it. He explains that by using the internet, we are gaining artificial knowledge, but losing our real knowledge.
I think there are some people who will be shocked by this and by reading about how technology is changing us, but for the most part I think America has become okay with the idea that our brains are decreasing, while our use of Google is increasing. We have accepted the fact that soon we will be full of ‘fake intelligence.’ Does the argument concede to outside positions? What is the effect of those concessions?
The argument Carr makes puts the outside position into perspective. The concessions show that Carr acknowledges, and has an open mind to the opinion of others. He values that American’s do need some basic technology, and that it can be very useful, while he also states that it can come to be a problem when it controls our lives. Does the writer define the issue correctly?
The writer does define the issue, as the more dependent we become on technology the more brain-dead we become, correctly. He does a good job of explaining what is happening, and the different psychology and neurology effects the internet has.
What is the warranting assumption?
The warranting assumption is that by only depending on technology and internet for our understanding of the world, our real intelligence is likely to decrease, while we gain artificial intelligence.
Is the assumption acceptable or arguable?
This assumption is questionable, because while there is evidence showing more people are depending on technology, there could also be arguments that some internet sites increase our intelligence. Can I prove the assumption is incorrect?
Yes, there are ways to prove that technology is helpful, and has a positive effect on society. For example, without the improvements in technology we would not have the information or access to advances in energy, medicine, cures for diseases, or education.
What else does the author of the argument assume?
Carr assumes that all people have access to newer technology. He believes that it is common for everyone in the workplace to have new cell phones, and computers. He also assumes that humans depend on technology for everything, which is why Americans have become more oblivious to things happening around them. He believes that everyone will fall into the trap of internet, and in a way will become hypnotized by it, when in reality, many people may not even have access to the internet or the new technology.