Bio
I'm interested in technology, web education, and writing. I create a daily writing prompt at First 50 Words and write about web education and web tec...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Is Google Search Destroying Your Memory?

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 6
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Science Magazine published an article this week titled Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips. Translated into nonscientific terms, the consequences seem to be that we are forgetting everything we once remembered.

tangled mess
Image: Tangled Mess by mlkeewa

The chief author of the study the paper is based on is Betsy Sparrow from Columbia University. The finding is,

When people expect to have future access to information, they have lower rates of recall of the information itself and enhanced recall instead for where to access it.

According to the New York Times article, Internet Use Affects Memory, Study Finds, here's how the study was done.

  1. Participants were told to type trivia into a computer
  2. Half were told the trivia would be saved in the computer
  3. Half were told the trivia would not be saved

The results were that people who thought they would not be able to find the information later recalled it better than the participants who thought it would be available in the computer later.

Even more interesting to me, since I seem to have a handle on what the study calls transactive memory, was a part of the study that dealt with where information was stored. Participants were told to remember the trivia and the folder it was stored in. People were better at remembering where the information was stored than at remembering the information. Wow, that is so me. Is it you?

At GeekSugar, in Does Google Cause Internet Brain Burnout?, they take a look at the study. they ask,

Have you had a similar experience? Has Internet use changed the way you process information and remember facts?

GeekSugar points to an example involving musician John Meyer, who says he quit Twitter because he could no longer have a complete thought.

Twitter hasn't affected me that way, but I do often experience this scenario: I read something. A day or two goes by. I discover I need to refer to whatever it was I read. Here's my thinking process: did I read it in a blog, on Twitter, on Facebook (and soon enough, on Google+) or where? I usually remember where I read it and I go looking there until I find it.

I was going to say that I'm frequently on IMDB trying to figure out who a familiar face is. Then I realized that I probably couldn't place the face because it had been surgically altered to just a hint of its former self. Especially among actors and actresses in my age group! But, more to the point – it's knowing where to find an answer when memory doesn't exactly serve.

Is this really new?

Maybe we do turn to Google or IMDB or even Twitter for a quick lookup of something we might have remembered whole before. But is that bad? And is knowing the source of information actually a new thing? Isn't there someone in your life who knows whatever and to whom you always turn when you need a bit of whatever? Don't you remember which book on your bookshelf has in it the exact quote you're seeking?

Let's face it. We have a serious information overload problem in today's world. Isn't knowing how to quickly get to almost any bit of information a good skill to have?

Virginia DeBolt, BlogHer Section Editor for Tech
virginia.debolt@blogher.com
Virginia blogs at Web Teacher and First 50 Words.

  • 6
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Virginia DeBolt 5 pts

It's that phrase "critically assess the information" that is key.

Virginia DeBolt, BlogHer Section Editor for Tech
virginia.debolt@blogher.com

Virginia blogs at Web Teacher ( http://www.webteacher.ws/ ) and First 50 Words ( http://first50.wordpress.com ).

Nordette Adams 5 pts

I find this interesting because Plato objected to writing technology on the grounds that writing would ruin human memory.

So you're right, Virginia. Nothing about the concept of technology softening memory ability is new. Similar objections have been laid at the calculator's door by people who said using one ruined memory of math facts (which is true in many ways. The saying "Use it or lose it" is based in the reality.)

But there's little to debate about storing knowledge because this kind of argument could be made for any reference source, including the dictionary. (Do we blame dictionaries for people being poor spellers? Ah, but some do blame Microsoft Word spell checker.)

I think that a more interesting argument is that digital storage could possibly change our perceptions of history. I know quite a few people who settle arguments based on whatever Wikipedia says. On the other hand, it's no worse than settling matters based on Britannica entries. It's always possible the source, tainted by some human bias, is wrong.

The ability to find and critically assess the information is the skill we should sharpen.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Virginia DeBolt 5 pts

I find I can remember things I am really interested in remembering, like new HTML tags. Other things, you can tell me four times and I still won't remember!

Virginia DeBolt, BlogHer Section Editor for Tech
virginia.debolt@blogher.com

Virginia blogs at Web Teacher ( http://www.webteacher.ws/ ) and First 50 Words ( http://first50.wordpress.com ).

kaherbert 5 pts

When I was in HS, we were being required to remember various formulas for both Math and Science.

When I was studying for semester finals, my Mom went to the teachers and asked why we were being required to memorize a semester's worth of formulas. SHe was told that is how you master the content. My Mom disagreed. She said that being able to apply the formulas to the correct situation was mastering the content.

Mom's word had extra weight because she was a scientist. She told the teachers and the principal that she didn't rely on her memory when she ran tests. She always had the formula in front of her.

Results - we were given a large notecard per class and allowed to write formulas on them.

In University I had a professor from Japan. One of those "American's are Stupid" studies came out. During class we the discussion turned to the study. We asked the professor why he was teaching at a US University if our students were such poor scholars.

The professor actually saw the American habit of looking up and verifying facts then applying them to the question as a strength. Another strength he saw was that Americans would disagree with and argue points with their professors. His students in Japan never did that.

Yuzername 5 pts

I respectfully beg to differ.

A distinction must be made between two terms.

Information is something you know what to do with to accomplish something. Thus, you can't have too much information.

Data is an assembly of facts—not useful, per se—distracting us from the point of interest. You can have too much of it.

It's the data that overloads us.

Once you separate what is meaningful (information) from the noise (data), you can make informed decisions and take appropriate action.

Clear thinking allows us to distill the essence of a set of data to get information to act upon in a meaningful way.

Given that, paper has a better memory than I.