The article “Is Google Making Us Stupid” was written by Nicholas Carr and published in July/August 2008. Carr zealously claims that the Internet is making us stupid and enjoy how using the Web has made changes to our overall thinking and attention span. He introduces his arguments using research and experience from other diverse groups and universities suggests that "we may be in the midst of a sea change in the way we think." So is Google making us as stupid as Nicholas Carr said? My answer is no; Human beings are not changing, but the era is. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayCarr begins the essay by saying that his recent problems concentrating on reading long texts, including books and articles he used to read effortlessly, spending too much time on the Internet. It suggests that constant Internet use could reduce the ability to concentrate and reflect on content. It features anecdotes from bloggers who write about the transformation of their reading and writing habits over time. It also analyzes a 2008 study from University College London on the new “types” of reading that will emerge and become predominant in the information age. He refers in particular to the work of Maryanne Wolf, a scholar of reading behavior, which includes theories about the role of technology and media in learning to write new languages. Carr argues that while language is an innate ability that arises directly from the structure of the brain, reading is conscious and taught. He acknowledges that this theory has a paucity of evidence so far, but refers to works such as Wolf's Proust and the Squid, which discusses how the brain's neurons adapt to a creature's environmental demands to become literate in new problem areas. The Internet, he believes, is just another type of environment to which we will adapt uniquely. What worries him is that, unlike the Internet, the computer is improving to be more human-like. We will become a simple automatic device. Through these email and Twitter communication methods, users can have 36 dialogues at once but not focus on any of them. Carr noted that the worst result of this explosion of information is that we struggle to focus our attention on a specific area. It will make us anxious, inexperienced readers. And as he said, something is controlling our brain. The way of thinking is different than in the past, especially while we read. After reading two pages, our attention begins to wander and we become anxious to find something else to do. He thinks this is caused by the fact that the network controls our brain nerve circuits. He discusses how concentration could be impaired by the use of the Internet and refers to the historical example of Nietzsche, who used a typewriter, a novelty in his time in the 1880s. Nietzsche's writing style supposedly changed after the advent of the typewriter. Carr classifies this example as demonstrating neuroplasticity, a scientific theory that states that neural circuits are contingent and continually changing. He invokes sociologist Daniel Bell's idea that technologies extend human cognition, arguing that humans unconsciously conform to the very qualities, or types of patterns, involved in the functions of these devices. He uses the watch as an example of a device that improved and regulated human perception and behavior. It seems Google is onto itby carrying out negative analyses, which guide us to believe in the information he has provided. What deserves our attention is that although the information we collect from websites is dictated by specific authorities. Our critical thinking may not have improved that well and we do not have the ability to identify true and false. Reading books in the library forced us to take a leap of knowledge. However, this no longer happens because the Internet will help us do it for us. When we outsource our memory to the Internet, we also outsource our wisdom and even our identity. As Carr says, the Internet is like a drug, it comes to us for a while and is easy to get at a low price. Just like chemical narcotics. This strong stimulation leads to a short-circuiting of our consciousness and unconscious thinking and to deeper innovative thinking. George Mason neurologist James said that Drosophila can rebuild its brain, in order to change the functioning function of the brain. Therefore, it is true that Google is changing the way our brain does, like Drosophila does. Carr uses some powerful arguments to show that the internet makes us lazy, I agree with this point. However, I think it depends on which person. As a computer science major, our first ECE course will teach us how to use Google search. Therefore, in my subconscious, the Internet is like an extension of the body. When faced with a new program challenge, I am not passionate about thinking about the problem in my own way, instead I am too lazy to spend time researching and prefer to simply use Internet sources such as a website called "stack overflow". I can type in the program requirements and with a simple click various masterpieces of the predecessor will come up. Also, after I finish writing in English, I don't need to check the grammar myself, a website called "Grammarly" does that for me. As for the short term, this so-called new way of thinking is cheaper and faster. However, this phenomenon is not conducive to better innovation and learning of a culture. So, in some respects, it's true that Google makes me lazier. Also, I totally agree with the fact that the Internet disturbs our attention. As Carr says, people lose the ability and patience to read long articles. In fact, it seems that I am more inclined towards fragmented reading with some articles recommended by websites. The negative effects that fragmented reading can bring to our rational and logical thinking and criticism. Fragmentary reading is always frowning or graceful; I can't sink my heart to understand deeply. The pros or cons have already been answered from the beginning. On the other hand, most traditional books are specifically targeted and introduce an aspect, we may know more about the background, which can help us gain a deeper understanding. Therefore, is it explained that the Internet makes us stupid? I do not believe. The answer to this question is completely open. From what I understand, what Carr was worried about can be described as an old saying: "Things will develop in the opposite direction when they become extreme." Google provides too much information and convenience. It is true that we may lose something, but what we gain is much more than what we lose. In most cases the Internet is still considered an important receiver of information. It is a fast and convenient channel for information and news from all over the world. Socrates wrote an article concerned about this ancient computer technology; thinks that using reading to replace memory won't make us smarter. Similar arguments have also existed for as long as they have.