Case in point: I did not stumble upon Carr’s article, or the study it referenced or Scott Karp, whose ideas may have equally inspired Carr’s article, until I read a passing, negative reference to Carr’s article in The Atlantic in a blog to which I subscribe. As a teacher, Will Richardson’s balanced reaction, comparatively, got me thinking. I most closely identify with Mike Curtin’ vision that hypertext and Web 2.0 tools might dissolve cultural borders and unite disparate people and ideas.
Early in my assessment of Car, I accused Carr of blundering because he suggested that the internet could repattern an individual’s cognitive process—is it naïve for me to hope that the same internet can repattern a world’s social stratosphere? Absolutely.
Here’s the question, though: Is it a sign of my ignorance that I must rely on–reference–so many other ideas in forming my own, something which would have been even more time-consuming, if not impossible, to accomplish before Web 2.0 tools like Google and blogs? If so, I don’t mind being broadly stupid.
Related: Grad School assignment
