subject: Why is Obama Dissing the Internet? [print this page] Why is Obama Dissing the Internet? Why is Obama Dissing the Internet?
CNN recently published an article "Is the internet making us quick, but shallow?" The article seeks to reaffirm a warning delivered by President Obama during a recent commencement address at Hampton University that the Internet is increasingly becoming a source of distraction, diversion and entertainment as opposed to a tool of empowerment. However, the citations offered as proof tend to undermine that premise. Instead, the referenced studies point to the importance of understanding the way people learn in general. Criticism of the manner in which people learn is actually very different than criticism of the tools available to them for learning.
Neither Obama nor the article's author poses the important central question: "what is the optimal way people learn and how might technology, and in particular the Internet, be leveraged to assist it?" Instead, the author points to two examples of how the Internet has been proven a distraction.
The first example focuses on a classroom study where it was shown that students given the option to surf the internet during a lecture were less likely to retain the content immediately afterward. The unstated premise is that it is better to retain more content immediately after the lecture, but is this necessarily true? Ironically, the Internet gives people, including professors, the opportunity to record lectures as "podcasts" online. Perhaps it is better in the long-term that people be given the immediate opportunity to trace new innovative thoughts and paths. They can always revisit material that is widely understood by others, or readily curated, so that it may be understood better at a later time. Perhaps this is completely rational behavior where the "test" or immediate recall of information is not an expectation. Additionally, there is no reason to believe that the potential for distraction created by multitasking is limited to surfing the Internet or even technology. If a student were reading a textbook or talking to a classmate during a lecture, the impediment to immediate recall might be no less severe.
The second example suggests that hyperlinks in online material risks compromising understanding that is achieved by following a traditional, linear format. Notwithstanding the potential cultural bias in such a conclusion, it fails to explain why this would be any different from footnotes typically found in college textbooks. Again, at best, this suggests there may be an optimal way for people to learn, but it does not suggest that the Internet or other technology is uniquely challenging learning. The presence of hyperlinks makes readily available data that affords the ability to "zoom in" on topics of interest. On its face, this seems superior to traditional citation because it increases the kind of transparency that encourages deeper thinking. Furthermore, traditional broadcast television and its relatively high information costs for broadcasters often fuels similar criticism for delivering "quick, but superficial" understanding. Most people will probably agree that sound bites, like those delivered during Obama's speech, are far more elusive than hyperlinks. In fact, the Internet, via its multitude of sources, viewpoints and hyperlinks, affords individuals the opportunity to triangulate data in a way that discerns truth from opinion. This may make the Internet a disruptive technology, but it is one with the capability of empowering individuals and electorates.
An intellectually honest discussion of the costs and benefits of new technology is always warranted. What are the trade-offs? Are they acceptable? If unacceptable, can they be influenced or mitigated? Are public investments in education and training warranted? The good news is that compared to most other traditional media the Internet probably holds the greatest potential to publicly evaluate the trade-offs. I certainly hope this post, and any links it may generate, serve as proof.
